One of the best examples of shameless distortion you’re ever going to see concerns the new Florida adoption law. Simply put, the law says that a mother can’t put a child up for adoption without the father’s consent. The law is both necessary and fair because fathers already have the obligation to pay for the … Continue reading “Spin at work”
One of the best examples of shameless distortion you’re ever going to see concerns the new Florida adoption law. Simply put, the law says that a mother can’t put a child up for adoption without the father’s consent. The law is both necessary and fair because fathers already have the obligation to pay for the child’s and mother’s support, and it was mandated by a US Supreme Court case, Stanley v. Illinois that’s been settled law since 1972.
The spinners are up-in-arms about a publication provision that’s an obscure part of the consent requirement. Florida’s Sun-Sentinel reports:
When background searches don’t work, a birth mother must place legal notices about the adoption in a local newspaper where the baby was conceived.
Read the first few words carefully. The mother has to publish a list of possible fathers in a legal paper only if she can’t otherwise find the man whose DNA matches the child. She would only come to this pass if: a) she had sex with so many different men she couldn’t keep track of them all; or b) she deliberately tried to conceal the existence of the baby from its father. I don’t think either if these scenarios shows the mother in a sympathetic light.
The publication provision mirrors the law on legal service: if you need to serve somebody with legal papers, in some cases you can do so through the mail, and in other cases you have to serve them personally. If diligent efforts to locate the party fail, you can serve them by publishing a notice in the paper, but you have to be prepared for all kinds of foolishness if you do that. It’s best to fess up to the authorities and avoid the unpleasantness, girls.
The spin campaign on this law is nonetheless taking flight: Hardball had a segment on it with Jerry Falwell and NOW’s Kim Gandy both drooling agreement that it was a bad law, based on things the law doesn’t actually do. The law’s author failed to make it clear, probably because he was so blown away by Barnicle and Gandy’s shamelessness. Welcome to big-time politics, dude, where the truth is the first casualty.
The blog discussion of this law is at Blogatelle, Joanne Jacobs, Spleenville, and Daily Pundit. Not too many folks are getting it.
UPDATE: Meryl Yourish also commented on this law on her blog; she’s evidently upset on the encroachment on maternal sovereignty that has NOW excited.