What the actual fuck?!?!?!

[Czernobog]

So, let's set the stage shall we?

Abortion is evil. It is wantonly killing/murdering innocent babies-to-be that did nothing wrong, and we must do everything we can to encourage pregnant women to carry their pregnancies to term, and have their babies.

However, in Illinois, apparently, if a woman has a child on her own, that child shall be decreed to not exist. No. That wasn't a typo. Republican representatives John D Cavaletto and Keith Wheeler sponsored the bill that would amend the state’s Vital Records Act. Here is the bill’s draconian thrust:

‘…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.’​

Now, forget public assistance. The fact that a child is ineligible for public assistance without a birth certificate is a given. Clearly, that is the intended purpose of this amendment - so that, rather than allow a child to receive public assistance, the state can "go after" the biological father to force then to pay child support. Never mind that a state can't really "force' that - one would be amazed at the number of biological fathers who would simply go willingly to serve their civil Contempt of Court sentences, rather than pay the child support; and that doesn't even take into account the fathers who live in different states, making the enforcement of child support rulings so costg prohibitive that most states don't even bother.

The unintended consequences are ind-boggling. Schools require a birth certificate for enrollment. So, any child subject to this amendment will not be able to get an education. He/She will also not be able to join the military, drive a car, vote, get a passport, or even prove citizenship.

Now, realistically, I don't expect that this bill will actually pass. However, it is breath-taking to realize that Republicans in Illinois would care so little about children that they would even suggest such a destructive bill, punishing women for doing exactly what they want them to do - not have an abortion!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Chasing that child support

 

[ColonelAngus]

It's a stupid proposal, but tt would sure teach women to stop opening their legs for random guys....but we can't have that. No one is actually responsible for their actions. They are victims and can't help it when they screw random guys and get impregnanted.

 

[Boss]

So let's get this straight... you would rather have a system where deadbeat fathers have no accountability and there is no way for the legal apparatus to hold them accountable for their children? Everything is fine with you as long as shitheels can shirk their responsibilities and carry on like oversexed baboons, leaving the women to struggle with the burden of the children?

Obviously, the purpose here is not to decree the child out of existence. It is to hold fathers equally accountable for the children they help produce. And I have some news for you, jackass... state lines do not protect deadbeat fathers in any way shape of form. You owe your child support regardless of where you live and if you are working with a social security number anywhere in the US, your tax returns can be intercepted and your wages garnished. It is certainly NOT cost prohibitive and it happens all the time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, let's set the stage shall we?

Abortion is evil. It is wantonly killing/murdering innocent babies-to-be that did nothing wrong, and we must do everything we can to encourage pregnant women to carry their pregnancies to term, and have their babies.

However, in Illinois, apparently, if a woman has a child on her own, that child shall be decreed to not exist. No. That wasn't a typo. Republican representatives John D Cavaletto and Keith Wheeler sponsored the bill that would amend the state’s Vital Records Act. Here is the bill’s draconian thrust:

‘…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.’​

Now, forget public assistance. The fact that a child is ineligible for public assistance without a birth certificate is a given. Clearly, that is the intended purpose of this amendment - so that, rather than allow a child to receive public assistance, the state can "go after" the biological father to force then to pay child support. Never mind that a state can't really "force' that - one would be amazed at the number of biological fathers who would simply go willingly to serve their civil Contempt of Court sentences, rather than pay the child support; and that doesn't even take into account the fathers who live in different states, making the enforcement of child support rulings so costg prohibitive that most states don't even bother.

The unintended consequences are ind-boggling. Schools require a birth certificate for enrollment. So, any child subject to this amendment will not be able to get an education. He/She will also not be able to join the military, drive a car, vote, get a passport, or even prove citizenship.

Now, realistically, I don't expect that this bill will actually pass. However, it is breath-taking to realize that Republicans in Illinois would care so little about children that they would even suggest such a destructive bill, punishing women for doing exactly what they want them to do - not have an abortion!

One shouldn't be surprised by the hateful, ignorant, stupid things conservatives do, this being one of many examples.

 

[Czernobog]

So let's get this straight... you would rather have a system where deadbeat fathers have no accountability and there is no way for the legal apparatus to hold them accountable for their children? Everything is fine with you as long as shitheels can shirk their responsibilities and carry on like oversexed baboons, leaving the women to struggle with the burden of the children?

Obviously, the purpose here is not to decree the child out of existence. It is to hold fathers equally accountable for the children they help produce. And I have some news for you, jackass... state lines do not protect deadbeat fathers in any way shape of form. You owe your child support regardless of where you live and if you are working with a social security number anywhere in the US, your tax returns can be intercepted and your wages garnished. It is certainly NOT cost prohibitive and it happens all the time.

Whether that was the purpose, or not, by refusing to issue a birth certificate, that is the effect of the proposal. I get the whole, "We're pissed about deadbeat dads" thing, but this is a preposterous attempt at dealing with it! And your federal taxes only get garnished when you reach a certain amount. Your state taxes don't get touched for child support in other states. The amount you must be behind before it becomes a federal issue is $10,000. Do you know how far one typically needs to be to be behind $10,000? I, at one time, because I was unemployed for a long time, was behind over 5 years, and the total wasn't even $3,000. And wage garnishment is not proactive. States don't track the employment of every person on court ordered child support. So unless the "deadbeat dad" in question, contacts the child support division where the child support is owed, they don't even know there are wages to be "garnished".

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Makes sense to me. Where's the problem?

 

[Czernobog]

Makes sense to me. Where's the problem?

So, preventing children from getting an education, a job, drive a car, or even prove their own citizenship seems perfectly reasonable to you?

 

[OldLady]

So let's get this straight... you would rather have a system where deadbeat fathers have no accountability and there is no way for the legal apparatus to hold them accountable for their children? Everything is fine with you as long as shitheels can shirk their responsibilities and carry on like oversexed baboons, leaving the women to struggle with the burden of the children?

Obviously, the purpose here is not to decree the child out of existence. It is to hold fathers equally accountable for the children they help produce. And I have some news for you, jackass... state lines do not protect deadbeat fathers in any way shape of form. You owe your child support regardless of where you live and if you are working with a social security number anywhere in the US, your tax returns can be intercepted and your wages garnished. It is certainly NOT cost prohibitive and it happens all the time.

That is true. The way they get around it is to work under the table.

 

[g5000]

I see a unanimous Supreme Court decision kicking these retards right in the balls...

 

[Boss]

So let's get this straight... you would rather have a system where deadbeat fathers have no accountability and there is no way for the legal apparatus to hold them accountable for their children? Everything is fine with you as long as shitheels can shirk their responsibilities and carry on like oversexed baboons, leaving the women to struggle with the burden of the children?

Obviously, the purpose here is not to decree the child out of existence. It is to hold fathers equally accountable for the children they help produce. And I have some news for you, jackass... state lines do not protect deadbeat fathers in any way shape of form. You owe your child support regardless of where you live and if you are working with a social security number anywhere in the US, your tax returns can be intercepted and your wages garnished. It is certainly NOT cost prohibitive and it happens all the time.

Whether that was the purpose, or not, by refusing to issue a birth certificate, that is the effect of the proposal. I get the whole, "We're pissed about deadbeat dads" thing, but this is a preposterous attempt at dealing with it!

Well, I am sorry you feel that way, I feel like it's an EXCELLENT way to deal with it. Cut the benefits off and see how fast those baby mommas start revealing who the daddy is! Not sure? We have DNA tests this day and age, we can work with a list of suspects. You say you get the whole "pissed with deadbeat dads" thing... well let's hear what YOUR proposal is for how we deal with that? Because, what it sounds like is, you don't get it at all... you want things to continue on as they have. AND you want to excoriate those who are attempting to do something about it.

Babies take two people to make and it's high time the men are held responsible here. The system we currently have, rewards women for every illegitimate bastard child she spits out and low life scumbucket men are more than willing to donate their seed to the cause. It's time we put a stop to it once and for all.

 

[Czernobog]

So let's get this straight... you would rather have a system where deadbeat fathers have no accountability and there is no way for the legal apparatus to hold them accountable for their children? Everything is fine with you as long as shitheels can shirk their responsibilities and carry on like oversexed baboons, leaving the women to struggle with the burden of the children?

Obviously, the purpose here is not to decree the child out of existence. It is to hold fathers equally accountable for the children they help produce. And I have some news for you, jackass... state lines do not protect deadbeat fathers in any way shape of form. You owe your child support regardless of where you live and if you are working with a social security number anywhere in the US, your tax returns can be intercepted and your wages garnished. It is certainly NOT cost prohibitive and it happens all the time.

Whether that was the purpose, or not, by refusing to issue a birth certificate, that is the effect of the proposal. I get the whole, "We're pissed about deadbeat dads" thing, but this is a preposterous attempt at dealing with it!

Well, I am sorry you feel that way, I feel like it's an EXCELLENT way to deal with it. Cut the benefits off...

The problem is that you're not just "cutting off the benefits..." You are cutting the child off from an education, the ability to get a job, the ability to join the military, even the ability to prove they are an American citizen. You act like "cutting off the benefits..." is the only effect that this stupid amendment would have; or, at the very least, that cutting off everything else that this child will ever need to be a productive member of American Society is irrelevant in comparison.

 

[g5000]

I say we lock these unwed mothers and their bastard children up in prison camps until we solve this problem.

You don't like it? Then you just want things to keep staying the same, you creeps! Yeah!

 

[g5000]

I say we grab every male negro off the street, jab a needle into them, and take their blood. Then we tag them with a microchip. Then we release them back into the wild.

Then we build a database of these animals and track them.

We'll get this problem licked in no time!

 

[Boss]

That is true. The way they get around it is to work under the table.

That's fine... they're sacrificing their social security or any future claim for disability, or any other government benefits, tax refunds and any disbursement of equity handled by the government.

 

[g5000]

Jonathan Swift - A Modest Proposal

 

[Boss]

The problem is that you're not just "cutting off the benefits..." You are cutting the child off from an education, the ability to get a job, the ability to join the military, even the ability to prove they are an American citizen. You act like "cutting off the benefits..." is the only effect that this stupid amendment would have; or, at the very least, that cutting off everything else that this child will ever need to be a productive member of American Society is irrelevant in comparison.

GOOD! It's what needs to happen. Maybe eventually, if the mother isn't willing to cooperate, the child will come forward and reveal who their father is? My guess is, the mother will want those benefits more than she wants to keep it a secret. She'll want her child to have an education and be eligible for benefits, etc.

The "effect" it will have will be to bring the deadbeat fathers into the light so they can be held financially accountable for helping raise their child. I'll ask you AGAIN... what is YOUR plan?

 

[Boss]

I say we lock these unwed mothers and their bastard children up in prison camps until we solve this problem.

You don't like it? Then you just want things to keep staying the same, you creeps! Yeah!

No need for all that... you cut off the gravy train and names will start coming forth... guaranteed.

 

[g5000]

I say we lock these unwed mothers and their bastard children up in prison camps until we solve this problem.

You don't like it? Then you just want things to keep staying the same, you creeps! Yeah!

No need for all that... you cut off the gravy train and names will start coming forth... guaranteed.

If it doesn't, THEN prison camps!

 

[Boss]

So, preventing children from getting an education, a job, drive a car, or even prove their own citizenship seems perfectly reasonable to you?

Absolutely.... If that's what it takes!