I don't think we've discussed this, have we? Mississippi Law Require Cord Blood Collection for Some

[AlmiraGulch]

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20130802/US--Teen.Pregnancy-Mississippi/

 

First paragraph:

 

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — If a girl younger than 16 gives birth and won't name the father, a new Mississippi law — likely the first of its kind in the country — says authorities must collect umbilical cord blood and run DNA tests to prove paternity as a step toward prosecuting statutory rape cases.

 

And then:

 

It is to stop children from being raped," said Bryant, who started his career as a deputy sheriff in the 1970s. "One of the things that go on in this state that's always haunted me when I was a law-enforcement officer is seeing the 14- and 15-year-old girl that is raped by the neighbor next door and down the street."

 

But Bear Atwood, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, said it's an invasion of privacy to collect cord blood without consent of the mother, father and baby. She also said that an underage girl who doesn't want to reveal the identity of her baby's father might skip prenatal care: "Will she decide not to have the baby in a hospital where she can have a safe, happy, healthy delivery?"

There's more.  Let's discuss.  

I happen to think that it's not going to stop a single thing.  If the 14 or 15 year old is raped by the neighbor and for some reason refuses to name him, unless that person's DNA is already in a system for some reason then what good will it do?  Are they going to start demanding DNA samples from all of the neighbors every time a teen girl gets pregnant?  Ridiculous. 

 

[bettyandbob]

I read a little earlier tonight about. I'm not sure my opinion yet. I also wondered how they propose to get DNA from the potential fathers. So, it is not clear how this legislation will help. Unless, there is a belief that many of these men are already in a DNA database from committing other criminal acts.

 

Mississippi does have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the nation. I do think one statement in the article I skimmed is true--middle school boys are not the ones impregnating middle school girls.

[zoobie]

I take it Mississippi doesn't think statutory rape is "legitimate rape" because otherwise the woman's body would be able to shut that whole thing down, right?

 

That is terrifying for so many reasons, not the least of which is the implications it could have on child custody. Mississippi is not one of the minority number of states that prevents a rapist from seeking custody of a child that is the product of the rape.

[justasque]

Data to aid discussion (because I'm geeky that way):

~Statutory rape in Mississippi involves a victim less than 14 and a perp at least two years older than the victim, or a victim between 14 and 16 and a perp at least 3 years older.  So 13/15+ or 14/17+ or 15/18+.  

~The age of consent is 16.

~ This table, from here, shows only 111 births to women under 15 in 2010; this would presumably be the target population for the law.  There were 1,959 births to women aged 15-17, but only those to 15 year olds would be eligible for statutory rape concerns.  

 

Number of births to females under 20 years of age, 2010  ^RH3
Total¹                                        Mississippi    United States
Females under 20 years of age        6,188             372,175

Females aged      Mississippi      United States
Under 15                       111                    4,497
15-17                          1,959                109,173

 

There are other interesting stats on this page, including:
~teen moms are disproportionately black, and
~The teen pregnancy rate and the teen abortion rate have gone down significantly (down 20% and 31% respectively) since 1988.  

[AlmiraGulch]

I don't think that anyone would say that a high teen pregnancy rate is a good thing.  I just fail to see how forced collection of cord blood will curtail that in any way.  

 

Also, based on some of the statistics above, it seems even more so to be a complete invasion of privacy for minorities even more than any other group.  That's great.  Let's see how many more ways we can trample on the rights of women and racial/ethnic minorities.

[Skadi]

The number one reason underage teens don't name the "rapist" is because the sex was consensual, often with a boy only three or four years older than her.

[Sisyphus]

Rights violation.

 

Mississippi makes me sad.

[Starr]

Don't you think they are really looking to get child support so they don't have to potentially give the mom any financial or food help?

[zoobie]

The number one reason underage teens don't name the "rapist" is because the sex was consensual, often with a boy only three or four years older than her.

Quasi-consensual as children are unable to consent to sex.

 

I wonder what the backlog of rape kits for violent rape (terminology?) is at the state crime lab. This ill-conceived (bad pun) law doesn't even say who is responsible for the cost of collection, storage, or testing.

[kroe1]

Seems like a lot of expense and paperwork for 111 births per year, assuming the above stats are correct.  Since most rapes do not end in pregnancy, why not spend all that money on educating youngsters how to safely speak up when they are raped?

 

I grew up in Mississippi a million years ago.  We would take our daughters to the doctor to find out what was wrong with them if they hadn't become mommas by age 17.  I remember when Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 y.o. cousin once removed.  While the rest of the world was shocked, most Mississippians wondered what all the fuss was about.  Our culture prepared girls and boys to be productive landowners, hunters, fishermen, builders, husbands, wives, and parents by their early teens.  Our society now is appalled, but the culture was what it was.  My brother married a 13 y.o. or 15 y.o., I can't remember exactly.  At any rate, they've been married 30+ years now and still going strong.  At any rate, this is off topic, but it brought back memories of a different time.

 

 

 

 

[SpecialClassical]

MS has all but made it impossible to abort so obviously they have the highest teen pg rates.

 

This is a gross violation of rights. .

A teen pregnancy ended by abortion is still a teen pregnancy. The statistics might not catch it, but an abortion does not negate the pregnancy. So it seems to me that other states with "lower rates" might actually be just as unsuccessful at preventing teen pregnancy as Mississippi.

[mommymilkies]

The number one reason underage teens don't name the "rapist" is because the sex was consensual, often with a boy only three or four years older than her.

 

 

Quasi-consensual as children are unable to consent to sex.

 

I wonder what the backlog of rape kits for violent rape (terminology?) is at the state crime lab. This ill-conceived (bad pun) law doesn't even say who is responsible for the cost of collection, storage, or testing.

I agree.  It is not consensual for a child.  And I agree that an older perp should be charged.  I have mixed feelings about this law. I had my first at age 17, but I knew a few who were pg earlier by MUCH older men.  They should have been caught and charged.

[Word Nerd]

"But Bear Atwood, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, said it's an invasion of privacy to collect cord blood without consent of the mother, father *and baby*."

 

That part made me raise my eyebrow. Lots of parents collect or bank cord blood without their baby's consent.

 

I agree that this proposal is an invasion of privacy and think it could have unintended consequences.

[mommymilkies]

I don't care if the father consents.  He violated *her* consent in sleeping with a child.  The baby also has no consent here, any more than the regular blood tests for diseases, IMHO.  The girl should be able to give consent, though, but honestly...at the point of cord blood collection, it is the baby's blood and doesn't harm baby or mom, so I can see how that could legally be collected.  I've donated cord blood 3 times, and I did delayed cord clamping twice.  Cord blood collection doesn't harm anyone. 

[AlmiraGulch]

I agree.  It is not consensual for a child.  And I agree that an older perp should be charged.  I have mixed feelings about this law. I had my first at age 17, but I knew a few who were pg earlier by MUCH older men.  They should have been caught and charged.

Ok, but how does forcing collection and storage of cord blood guarantee that this?  

[beaners]

I don't care if the father consents.  He violated *her* consent in sleeping with a child.  The baby also has no consent here, any more than the regular blood tests for diseases, IMHO.  The girl should be able to give consent, though, but honestly...at the point of cord blood collection, it is the baby's blood and doesn't harm baby or mom, so I can see how that could legally be collected.  I've donated cord blood 3 times, and I did delayed cord clamping twice.  Cord blood collection doesn't harm anyone. 

 

There's always the possibility that the mother has an ethical objection to the way donated and banked cord blood is used.  I do.  I have no objection to either banking for the benefit of other children or cord blood being used for medical research, but I strongly object to the lack of transparency.  How many people know that most blood they bank, expecting other children to be able to use it, actually ends up being used for research because the banked amount is too small to be used for future treatment?  And what money is being exchanged in the process?  I have strong objections to the way the cord blood banking industry is currently operating.

 

All of that is neither here nor there for this type of banking though.

 

I also disagree with the speculation that most of these babies have fathers only slightly older than the mothers.  There is a certain type of predator who seems to seek out relationships with young teenagers or adults with lower intelligence.

 

(Edited to add: I am agreeing in my disagreement. I don't know if that makes my statement more or less clear.) 

[AlmiraGulch]

I don't care if the father consents.  He violated *her* consent in sleeping with a child.  The baby also has no consent here, any more than the regular blood tests for diseases, IMHO.  The girl should be able to give consent, though, but honestly...at the point of cord blood collection, it is the baby's blood and doesn't harm baby or mom, so I can see how that could legally be collected.  I've donated cord blood 3 times, and I did delayed cord clamping twice.  Cord blood collection doesn't harm anyone. 

Not necessarily.  If she's not naming the father, then it could just as easily be the 14 year old boy next door as the 35 year old man down the road. 

[AlmiraGulch]

Seems like a lot of expense and paperwork for 111 births per year, assuming the above stats are correct.  Since most rapes do not end in pregnancy, why not spend all that money on educating youngsters how to safely speak up when they are raped?

 

I grew up in Mississippi a million years ago.  We would take our daughters to the doctor to find out what was wrong with them if they hadn't become mommas by age 17.  I remember when Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 y.o. cousin once removed.  While the rest of the world was shocked, most Mississippians wondered what all the fuss was about.  Our culture prepared girls and boys to be productive landowners, hunters, fishermen, builders, husbands, wives, and parents by their early teens.  Our society now is appalled, but the culture was what it was.  My brother married a 13 y.o. or 15 y.o., I can't remember exactly.  At any rate, they've been married 30+ years now and still going strong.  At any rate, this is off topic, but it brought back memories of a different time.

I agree with you on the first bolded part.  The rest of it, though....are you really waxing nostalgic over this?  Or am I reading it wrong?

[Murphy101]

I agree with you on the first bolded part. The rest of it, though....are you really waxing nostalgic over this? Or am I reading it wrong?

I don't know about her, but one doesn't have to wax poetic about it to remember there were lots of positives about it too. I *think* she's just noting that it was not all rape and abuse and misery. Many of them were/are actually very happy with their lives.

 

My parents among them.

 

What you presume to be a must image of life for a 13-17 year old is cultural.

 

Not all cultures agree.

 

Including many cultures in the states, especially 45+ years ago.

 

That's not waxing poetic or condemning. It's just reality. *shrug*

[mommymilkies]

Not necessarily. If she's not naming the father, then it could just as easily be the 14 year old boy next door as the 35 year old man down the road.

Just from my experience, that is unlikely. Either way, should he not have to step up to care for the child because of his age?

[AlmiraGulch]

Just from my experience, that is unlikely. Either way, should he not have to step up to care for the child because of his age?

Sure he should  That's not the purpose of this law.

 

And still, how could forced cord blood collection and storage make that happen anyway?  What are they going to do?  Go to every boy/man in a 15 mile radius and force them to take a DNA test?  It's ludicrous.

[mommymilkies]

Ok, but how does forcing collection and storage of cord blood guarantee that this?

.

I never said that I agree with this completely, just that I can understand what they're trying to do.

[mommymilkies]

Sure he should That's not the purpose of this law.

 

And still, how could forced cord blood collection and storage make that happen anyway? What are they going to do? Go to every boy/man in a 15 mile radius and force them to take a DNA test? It's ludicrous.

I would assume they're hoping to catch predators who have their DNA in the system from prior offenses or future offenses. But I didn't make the law, so I can't speak for them.

[AlmiraGulch]

I don't know about her, but one doesn't have to wax poetic about it to remember there were lots of positives about it too. I *think* she's just noting that it was not all rape and abuse and misery. Many of them were/are actually very happy with their lives.

 

My parents among them.

 

What you presume to be a must image of life for a 13-17 year old is cultural.

 

Not all cultures agree.

 

Including many cultures in the states, especially 45+ years ago.

 

That's not waxing poetic or condemning. It's just reality. *shrug*

45 years ago was really not that long ago.  45 years ago my sister was 11.  I cannot imagine how she would have been married off and supporting a family within a couple of years, or how anyone could think that would have been ok as a norm.  Yes, there are always exceptions, but 13 or 14 is a child, and was a child 45 years ago.  We're not talking about the 1800s here.

 

Lots of things just "were", but that doesn't mean that they were right.  Cultural evolution isn't always bad.

[KungFuPanda]

I would assume they're hoping to catch predators who have their DNA in the system from prior offenses or future offenses. But I didn't make the law, so I can't speak for them.

Even with no DNA in the system, they could determine if the father was a close blood relative to the girl.

[zoobie]

"But Bear Atwood, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, said it's an invasion of privacy to collect cord blood without consent of the mother, father *and baby*."

 

That part made me raise my eyebrow. Lots of parents collect or bank cord blood without their baby's consent.

 

I agree that this proposal is an invasion of privacy and think it could have unintended consequences.

The parents bank the cord blood in a private facility for personal use and future medical benefit of the child (or sibling) . Parental rights give the mother the ability to consent to medical procedures for her children, and parents control the privacy rights of their children. Here, the state is collecting cord blood without the mother's consent for herself or her child. The state banks it, and the child's DNA is in a state database under state control for state use. Very different scenarios.

[KungFuPanda]

Seems like a lot of expense and paperwork for 111 births per year, assuming the above stats are correct. Since most rapes do not end in pregnancy, why not spend all that money on educating youngsters how to safely speak up when they are raped?

 

I grew up in Mississippi a million years ago. We would take our daughters to the doctor to find out what was wrong with them if they hadn't become mommas by age 17. I remember when Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 y.o. cousin once removed. While the rest of the world was shocked, most Mississippians wondered what all the fuss was about. Our culture prepared girls and boys to be productive landowners, hunters, fishermen, builders, husbands, wives, and parents by their early teens. Our society now is appalled, but the culture was what it was. My brother married a 13 y.o. or 15 y.o., I can't remember exactly. At any rate, they've been married 30+ years now and still going strong. At any rate, this is off topic, but it brought back memories of a different time.

This lifestyle wasn't a cultural anomaly that the rest of the nation failed to understand. The whole country lived that way once. Some places just don't change as quickly as others.

[Murphy101]

45 years ago was really not that long ago. 45 years ago my sister was 11. I cannot imagine how she would have been married off and supporting a family within a couple of years, or how anyone could think that would have been ok as a norm. Yes, there are always exceptions, but 13 or 14 is a child, and was a child 45 years ago. We're not talking about the 1800s here.

13 or 14 wasn't a child to lots of people 45+ years ago. Many were hard working kind young men and women. My parents married very young. No one made them. In fact, my dad's dad never forgave him. They never spoke again. I have cousins who have been married since they were 14/15. Both men and women, not just girls with older men. Many of them had to live together for a couple years before they could legally marry in some states. I have a nephew in the military who has been with his wife since he was 16 and she had just turned 14.

 

I married at 19 to the love of my life who I happened to have met at 16. (Which I readily admit is a world of difference from 14. I was WAY too wild at 14 to settle down!)

 

Our lives are similar to most people. We love our kids. We work. We gripe about politics. We fall in love.

 

So given what *I* have seen and know, *I* would not immediately assume that a pregnant 14 yr old was raped or coerced or neccessarily wrong. Especially if she lives in an area where even if it isn't the norm, it's not unusual either.

 

I don't think my culture is necessarily the right one.

 

I wasn't asking you to agree or adopt the practice.

 

I was doing nothing more than pointing out that this is not necessarily some awful evil to be stomped out.

 

As for the law in question. I think it's pointless, stupid and ineffective and thus I'm not for it.

 

I think the potential to cause more harm is high and this I'm not for it.

 

I am also in not okay with taking away a mother's parenting decisions only because she is young and or unmarried.

[Murphy101]

This lifestyle wasn't a cultural anomaly that the rest of the nation failed to understand. The whole country lived that way once. Some places just don't change as quickly as others.

Yes. This. Much better said than my typical long winded muddy method. :)

[AlmiraGulch]

 

 

So given what *I* have seen and know, *I* would not immediately assume that a pregnant 14 yr old was raped or coerced or neccessarily wrong. 

 

I wasn't asking you to agree or adopt the practice.

 

I was doing nothing more than pointing out that this is not necessarily some awful evil to be stomped out.

 

As for the law in question. I think it's pointless, stupid and ineffective and thus I'm not for it.

 

I think the potential to cause more harm is high and this I'm not for it.

 

I am also in not okay with taking away a mother's parenting decisions only because she is young and or unmarried.

First of all, it we're in agreement on the law.  I don't think the rest of what we're discussing has anything at all to do with that law.  

 

You brought it up, but you're right....I don't agree with it.   I'm glad it worked out for your parents, and I'm sure many other,  but  I still think that to be viewed as "normal" in the United States of America this day and age is alarming. 

[happypamama]

It seems like an awfully big expense and hassle for the few answers it might provide in a few cases. Okay, rule out close blood relative of the mother, fine. But is that really going to help in most cases, where the father might be one of hundreds of men/boys who could have had contact with the mother?

 

One question that could arise from this is: if the mother was violently raped (and I'm talking completely non-consensual; I realize that a 14yo who consents to s*x with her 16yo boyfriend is only quasi-consenting, because she's so young, but having been a 14yo with a 16yo boyfriend, I do think two teens deciding to do something with the limited foresight that teens have is very different from someone forcibly raping someone else), and the cord blood forces the ID of her rapist, and the courts go after the rapist for child support, then does that mean the mother will be forced to relive traumatic experiences over and over again for the rest of her child's life, if she has to negotiate with the courts about support? While I do think a man should be responsible for the children he fathers, I can definitely see why, in some cases, it might be kinder just to allow a mother to collect welfare benefits, while attempting to put a traumatic event behind her. Does that make any sense?

 

There is, of course, the issue of whether the blood *should* be collected, or whether it should be allowed to go back to the baby anyway; some people feel that clamping and cutting the cord early enough to allow blood collecting is not the best for the baby, healthwise, and should be avoided (unless there's an obvious need for the cord blood, such as an older sibling who needs a transplant).

 

I also take offense to the idea that a mother might opt to skip a hospital birth simply because she doesn't want to be forced to out her rapist. Yes, I absolutely think that would be a terrible reason for a mother to skip any necessary care, but many women can have happy, healthy births outside of the hospital! Harumph. ;)

 

This seems like it has a lot of issues surrounding it -- good intentions, but maybe not the most practical in execution.

[justasque]

It seems like an awfully big expense and hassle for the few answers it might provide in a few cases.

 

While I do think a man should be responsible for the children he fathers, I can definitely see why, in some cases, it might be kinder just to allow a mother to collect welfare benefits, while attempting to put a traumatic event behind her. Does that make any sense?

 

Yep.

 

And we can't assume that mom is going to go on welfare if dad isn't identified and charged.  Rape doesn't only happen to poor women.  Plenty of families would handle such a situation by supporting the mom in her decision to keep her baby, by letting her determine if and when she is ready to press charges, and by financially supporting her and her baby until she can finish her education and support them both herself.  

 

Not to mention that a jailed dad isn't going to be a particularly useful source of financial support.

 

I also wonder why the legislators limited the law to minors; adult women get raped too.  

[mommymilkies]

Even with no DNA in the system, they could determine if the father was a close blood relative to the girl.

 

Did not think of that, even though it isn't as unlikely as we would like to hope.  /shudder

Yep.

 

And we can't assume that mom is going to go on welfare if dad isn't identified and charged.  Rape doesn't only happen to poor women.  Plenty of families would handle such a situation by supporting the mom in her decision to keep her baby, by letting her determine if and when she is ready to press charges, and by financially supporting her and her baby until she can finish her education and support them both herself.  

 

Not to mention that a jailed dad isn't going to be a particularly useful source of financial support.

 

I also wonder why the legislators limited the law to minors; adult women get raped too.  

But we can assume someone 15 or under who is pregnant will likely need some sort of welfare to make it.  I have known very, very, very few teen moms who have made it without any.  Under 16?  None.  Whether it's state medicaid or whatever.  Not saying that I'm against it.  I have Medicaid, myself.  But it's pretty much proven that most teen pregnancies at that age happen under impoverished circumstances.  The family just can't help much sometimes.  I will also say that one of my biggest issues with this is that it might force the father to be known if the mother wants nothing to do with him.  I don't personally believe rapists should be entitled to custody, for example, and I can see this opening the door to that. 

 

The thing is with adult women, they better understand their chances of getting legal help, etc.  A child who is 14 and pregnant probably does not understand the legality of the situation or even that they have people willing to help them. 

[justasque]

... I will also say that one of my biggest issues with this is that it might force the father to be known if the mother wants nothing to do with him.  I don't personally believe rapists should be entitled to custody, for example, and I can see this opening the door to that. 

 

The thing is with adult women, they better understand their chances of getting legal help, etc.  A child who is 14 and pregnant probably does not understand the legality of the situation or even that they have people willing to help them. 

If the goal of taking the cord blood is to force the dad to pay child support in the case of moms on government assistance, then I think it would be considerably cheaper to just do a cheek swab for the baby's DNA if and when mom applies for aid.  And there would be no need to single out underage girls for that.  (I'm not advocating for this, just trying to understand where the legislators are coming from.)  But forcing a rape victim to deal with child support from their rapist just doesn't strike me as kind.  It wraps her up into financial dependency on her rapist, and as others have pointed out makes her vulnerable to custody issues from the rapist and/or possibly his family, which is just cruel.

 

If the goal is to help young girls who have been raped (or may have been raped), then actual help - counseling, legal assistance, medical expenses, and other kinds of support, etc. - might be a better use of the taxpayer's money than an expensive fishing expedition for the baby's paternity.  If the mom gives consent and wants to pursue legal options, a cheek swab is always a possibility; no need to do it routinely at birth.

 

Each girl's situation is going to be unique.  A broad range of possible assistance, tailored to her specific needs and circumstances, possibly including cheek-swab paternity tests on the baby if it makes sense in her situation, seems to be a better approach than routinely taking cord blood just because a girl is under age.  (And what is done with it?  Is it tested? Stored for the child's later use if need be?  Used for research?  Who pays for all this?  Who gives consent for all this?)

 

Bizarre.

[*Lulu*]

I keep coming back and reading this thread thinking I will have an "aha" moment where it makes sense.

 

And...........

 

 

 

Nope. I just do not get it.

[Murphy101]

just because a girl is under age. (And what is done with it? Is it tested? Stored for the child's later use if need be? Used for research? Who pays for all this? Who gives consent for all this?)

 

Bizarre.

To me this is key. They are doing what they want to these girls because they are under age. And we aren't supposed to ask these very reasonable questions bc omg, that must be unpatriotic or pro-rape or some other such BS.

 

There is ZERO reason to do this. Soooo.

 

This begs the question of who IS going to benefit and how?

 

What else are they going to do just because they can and the girl is too young/poor to argue?

 

This is why conspiracist (sp?) have so many theories. I mean, it's almost worse to think they actually have zero point, plan or goal, kwim? Bah.

 

This crap makes me completely understand Dr Horrible.

[justasque]

This article has slightly more info.  A few highlights (quotes):

~At roughly $1,000 a pop, who will pay for the DNA tests in the country's poorest state? 
 

~The attorney general's office doesn't keep statistics on the number of cases that district attorneys pursue in Mississippi under the state's longstanding statuary rape law, spokeswoman Jan Schaefer said.  "A lot of DAs and judges don't want to take these cases on," Bryant said. "Oftentimes, the female doesn't want to press charges or the parents do not want to. So, we've just got to stop this."  
[Does she mean stop the law, or stop young women and their parents from choosing not to press charges?]

~The new law says it's reasonable to think a sex crime has been committed against a minor if the baby's mother won't identify the father; if she lists him as unknown, older than 21 or deceased; or if the identified father disputes paternity.

~The law says health care workers and facilities cannot face civil or criminal penalties for collecting cord blood, and failure to collect is a misdemeanor offense.

~The law doesn't address whether the mother can refuse blood collection or what would happen to her if she does.

[That kind of leaves health care workers in the lurch if the mother does not consent, which leads me to wonder how much they were consulted by those writing the law.]

It still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

[kiwik]

It sounds like a fairly common technique - go after a small section of the population who are defenceless to make it look like you are dealing with a big problem.

 

Here the government goes after teenage girls who get pregnant while at school, leave school and go on a benefit. Everyone moralises about girls who choose solo motherhood to get out of working/as a career choice and talks about what a big problem. BUT the teenage girls are a very small percentage of the people on the single parents benefit as are the oft maligned long tern recipients. The vast majority of recipients are separated women in their 30s who use it for 18 months or less.

 

But it looks like the government is doing something and the people they are going after are some of the most vulnerable in society.

[justasque]

Another article, which more/different info.  

And another.  

""It is a lot easier for politicians to talk about protecting young women than it is for them to talk about adequate sex education, access to contraception, looking at multi-generational poverty, making sure we have an adequately funded education system," she said. "All of these things have been shown to decrease the teen pregnancy rate.""

And here is the actual bill.

[Murphy101]

it is still unclear who would prosecute the men if they are located. Even then, prosecutors would have to figure out where the baby was conceived in order to file charges.

There's a twist we hadn't discussed. That's right. They'd have to prove the baby was conceived/mother raped in their jurisdiction. And they have to do it with a victim that does not want to press charges or whatever? Yeahhh. Good luck with that.

 

Oh for crying out loud.

 

Amazing level of stupid.

 

And an amazing act to push some hidden agenda for whoever is going to benefit from this.

 

Hmmm.

 

I wonder how far away we are from it being required to submit DNA for a drivers license...

 

Bet not far.