This is sort of our there IMO.

Quote:“Provides that if the unmarried mother cannot or refuses to name the child's father, either a father must be conclusively established by DNA evidence or, within 30 days after birth, another family member who will financially provide for the child must be named, in court, on the birth certificate. Provides that absent DNA evidence or a family member's name, a birth certificate will not be issued and the mother will be ineligible for financial aid from the State for support of the child.”

Illinois Bill Would Make Life Even More Difficult For Single Moms

I think I get what they're trying to solve, but is this really the best way to go about it?

Well this bill definitely puts the onus on the mothers. What's the current policy if a mother refuses to name the child's father?

(02-25-2016 10:56 AM)Murray007 Wrote:  Well this bill definitely puts the onus on the mothers. What's the current policy if a mother refuses to name the child's father?

I assume she still got a birth certificate.

I can see withholding the state funds, but unless I'm interpreting this wrong, how can you not issue a birth certificate for a baby?

And who would have to pay for a DNA test? And what if the result did not match anyone in the database?

(02-25-2016 11:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 10:56 AM)Murray007 Wrote:  Well this bill definitely puts the onus on the mothers. What's the current policy if a mother refuses to name the child's father?

I assume she still got a birth certificate.

I can see withholding the state funds, but unless I'm interpreting this wrong, how can you not issue a birth certificate for a baby?

And who would have to pay for a DNA test? And what if the result did not match anyone in the database?

wow....the dems are figuring out, 'too many puppies'

why so long?

diptards....

(02-25-2016 11:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 10:56 AM)Murray007 Wrote:  Well this bill definitely puts the onus on the mothers. What's the current policy if a mother refuses to name the child's father?

I assume she still got a birth certificate.

I can see withholding the state funds, but unless I'm interpreting this wrong, how can you not issue a birth certificate for a baby?

And who would have to pay for a DNA test? And what if the result did not match anyone in the database?

Sounds like Maury Povich could be of good use in Illinois.

Seems all that could be easily avoidable by just naming the father.

Both PARENTS are financially accountable for the child. Not THE PUBLIC.

There are multiple reasons libs dont like this:

1) For rape / incest, the perpetrator would get busted
2) If the father isnt named, the father cant be held accountable for footing the bills of the child
3) No father, mo money from the state and feds

And I like how the article is racist.

(02-25-2016 10:56 AM)Murray007 Wrote:  Well this bill definitely puts the onus on the mothers. What's the current policy if a mother refuses to name the child's father?

As I understand it, there is no burden on the father to provide child support or anything else... which is the problem (dead-beat dads) that this is trying to solve. It doesn't put more burden on the moms, other than to not be complicit in what is arguably 'fraud'. She knows who the father is but puts that burden on the state rather than the father... and doesn't help the state try and get the money from the dad. If not fraud, certainly obstruction.

I don't know about not issuing a birth certificate because that has implications for the life of the child... but I certainly understand not giving additional benefits.

This is part of the game being played (and perpetuating the cycle of uneducated poor)... you get pregnant while in high school and you get money to live and daycare so you can finish... but of course once you finish you're a 'singe mom' with a high school diploma... not exactly a high demand employee... you don't name the dad so they aren't at 'risk'.... it's 'free money'... and it keeps you poor.

This sort of a law might actually encourage more contraception, plan B or even abortion... but in my opinion, these are the sort of times when that is likely appropriate. When the mother doesn't have the means to take care of the child themselves and doesn't want the father involved in any way, not even just to pay.

I suspect there are exceptions I haven't thought of, but there are also generally exceptions to rules like these. Name the father and move to have his rights terminated or something, including the right to be named on the certificate (if necessary for some reason).

(02-25-2016 11:12 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Both PARENTS are financially accountable for the child. Not THE PUBLIC.

There are multiple reasons libs dont like this:

1) For rape / incest, the perpetrator would get busted
2) If the father isnt named, the father cant be held accountable for footing the bills of the child
3) No father, mo money from the state and feds

And I like how the article is racist.

No, us liberals want rapists to walk free, fathers to abandon children and everyone to need government assistance.

Do you seriously believe that?

(02-25-2016 11:11 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Seems all that could be easily avoidable by just naming the father.

Yes. But if they don't know? And any provisions for children of rape?

I see mothers naming dads left and right just because.

I think this creates far more problems than it even hopes to solve.

(02-25-2016 11:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 11:11 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Seems all that could be easily avoidable by just naming the father.

Yes. But if they don't know? And any provisions for children of rape?

This is a really dumb law. One of the sponsors is the rep for the district next to me. The birth certificate should be issued. Not issuing it ultimately impacts the child. They could attack finding dead beat dads in a way other than this.

(02-25-2016 11:12 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Both PARENTS are financially accountable for the child. Not THE PUBLIC.

There are multiple reasons libs dont like this:

1) For rape / incest, the perpetrator would get busted
2) If the father isnt named, the father cant be held accountable for footing the bills of the child
3) No father, mo money from the state and feds

And I like how the article is racist.

Unless they address cases where a woman is raped or does not know the father this will not pass constitutional muster.

(02-25-2016 12:00 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 11:12 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Both PARENTS are financially accountable for the child. Not THE PUBLIC.

There are multiple reasons libs dont like this:

1) For rape / incest, the perpetrator would get busted
2) If the father isnt named, the father cant be held accountable for footing the bills of the child
3) No father, mo money from the state and feds

And I like how the article is racist.

Unless they address cases where a woman is raped or does not know the father this will not pass constitutional muster.

Why not? My guess is that the rape situation is one where the mother has complied by cooperating with police to give a description of the alleged rapist, as much as possible. As to the other one, you should know the father of your child. You might have to test 10 guys on Maury, but eventually you'll find the dude.

(02-25-2016 12:00 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 11:12 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Both PARENTS are financially accountable for the child. Not THE PUBLIC.

There are multiple reasons libs dont like this:

1) For rape / incest, the perpetrator would get busted
2) If the father isnt named, the father cant be held accountable for footing the bills of the child
3) No father, mo money from the state and feds

And I like how the article is racist.

Unless they address cases where a woman is raped or does not know the father this will not pass constitutional muster.

Thats not a problem. Rape is a crime that must be reported. I have no problem with government aid helping out a woman and a child who was born out of rape, where the father is not known.

At some point in time, the rapists dna will likely get entered into a system, and he will be linked to the crime, punished for the crime, and then have to pay back to the government the aid the woman and child received.

So, the woman has to list the father, or previously had to list that she was raped so that a crime could be investigated.

(02-25-2016 11:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I see mothers naming dads left and right just because.

I think this creates far more problems than it even hopes to solve.

I tend to agree.

(02-25-2016 11:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I see mothers naming dads left and right just because.

I think this creates far more problems than it even hopes to solve.

Agreed.. I understand where they're going.. But if we just get women naming some "guy" as the father...

(02-25-2016 11:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I see mothers naming dads left and right just because.

Yeah, but a DNA test will rectify that.

(02-25-2016 12:05 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 12:00 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 11:12 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Both PARENTS are financially accountable for the child. Not THE PUBLIC.

There are multiple reasons libs dont like this:

1) For rape / incest, the perpetrator would get busted
2) If the father isnt named, the father cant be held accountable for footing the bills of the child
3) No father, mo money from the state and feds

And I like how the article is racist.

Unless they address cases where a woman is raped or does not know the father this will not pass constitutional muster.

Why not? My guess is that the rape situation is one where the mother has complied by cooperating with police to give a description of the alleged rapist, as much as possible. As to the other one, you should know the father of your child. You might have to test 10 guys on Maury, but eventually you'll find the dude.

I don't disagree but it should not be mandated by law..

(02-25-2016 12:23 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 11:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I see mothers naming dads left and right just because.

Yeah, but a DNA test will rectify that.

According to the bill, the mother will either need a consent to paternity or a DNA test. Maury might need to do more shows.