Baby Daddy Drama: Campfield Spars With Another Colleague Over Paternity Bill
Posted on March 16, 2009 at 2:22 pmAs was reported by Tom Humphrey over the weekend, Rep. Stacey Campfield has once again ignited some fireworks in a state legislative committee on Wednesday of last week.
Just like last year’s famous standoff with Rep. Rob Briley, at issue was Campfield’s bill, HB 805, dubbed the “Baby Daddy Bill” which would allow a mechanism for paternity be disestablished in the event that a conclusive DNA test proves a previously assumed parent is not the biological father.
Rep. Jeanne Richardson raises some concerns about the bill and whether legislation is necessary. Richardson seems to be saying that the bill makes her uncomfortable because it presupposes some mass distrust of women and that there simply aren’t that many cases women deliberately attempting to defraud the men in their lives about offspring to justify codification in law.
Aunt B. somewhat similarly delves into the psychology that could be behind this legislation engaging in speculation about Campfield’s past interactions with women.
My question about all this is: so what?
Let’s say Rep. Stacey Campfield is as demented as Aunt B. projects that he is. Let’s say further that we concede that a very large majority of women are not attempting to defraud men who they have slept with and that most cases of inaccurate paternity are honest mistakes by virtuous women. Lets also concede that most all these cases are very rare exceptions from the norm.
So what?
The question at hand is: should a man be forced to pay for a child not of his line once that fact has been determined? If the answer is no then should not the law afford these men the protect they deserve regardless of the rarity of these instances and morally upstanding nature the women involved?
If the legislation would do nothing objectively “wrong” then what does the motivation for filing such legislation have to do with anything? The legislation is either just or unjust, right or wrong?
Right?
Rob Briley’s Ophelia Ford Moment
Posted on April 22, 2008 at 11:43 amKay Brooks is blogging about the Rob Briley/Stacey Campfield brouhaha over letting men out of obligations to their partner’s offspring not of their line. She calls it Briley’s “Ophelia Ford moment”:
For some reason the Democrat ’statesmen’ at the legislature have decided that Campfield is fair game for their petty antics and Briley took full advantage of this culture by threatening to hold the entire committee hostage until Campfield answered Briley’s completely inappropriate questions. The legislature doesn’t need to know how Campfield feels about adult relations. It needs to understand that this an injustice that needs to be corrected.
How Campfield managed to remain calm and professional during this latest personal attack, and the others, is beyond me.
And there is the rub isn’t it? As much as this event is now getting press, how different would this be covered and how different would public perception be if this had happened to anyone but Stacey Campfield?
Would Rep. Bill Dunn have been treated like this if he presented this bill? Jason Mumpower?
Well Propertied Men
Posted on April 21, 2008 at 5:01 pmAunt B. sides with Rob Briley being of the opinion that if a man signs on as father on a child’s birth certificate and then finds out later the child is not biologically it is his fault for not getting all the information before he signed on the line:
A person is not free from the debts their spouse incurs while they are married, even if the person in question didn’t have anything to do with incurring those debts. Why should a person be free of paying child support for a child brought into the marriage just because the person didn’t have anything to do with incurring that child?
To me, it seems like these men are pissed because, in their minds, they’re giving money to their wives and kids in order to purchase their wives’ sexual fidelity and the assurance that those kids share genetic material with him. So, on the one hand, they believe their wife and children to be their property.
On the other hand, if you ask why this kind of “property” should be treated differently than other kinds of property incurred during the marriage, they get to argue that it’s different because women and children aren’t property.
To me, though, what it looks like is that they want the ability to punish their wives for being unfaithful by cutting off funds to their kids.
Gone, Baby, Gone: Briley Sends Campfield Paternity Bill To Summer Study
Posted on at 8:10 amRep. Rob Briley plays Detective Bressant to Rep. Campfield’s Casey Affleck during discussion over a bill which would allow fathers to petition to the court to disestablish paternity after DNA evidence reveals a baby was not sired by the man on the birth certificate:
“I think this is the most anti-child piece of legislation I’ve seen down here in 10 years - by far,” said Briley.
“Do you believe in premartial sex?” Briley asked Campfield.
“I don’t see what that has to do with this (legislation),” replied Campfield.
With little variation, Briley repeated his question and Campfield his answer. Briley also asked Campfield if “you see adultery as wrong?”
“You’re talking about children that are the result of premartial sex or adultery,” Briley said.
“No. I don’t think that children should be involved in premartial sex,” said Campfield. He also expressed disapproval of adultery.
“Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation,” said Briley. “You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a parent’s conduct.”
“Children never have to pay the child support,” said Campfield.
Recent Comments
Common sense, I can use bible...
Kent is the most conservative...
What’s really unaffordale is to keep...
Just doing what any lap dog would do for it’s...
Congressman Cooper has apparently decided to take the...
I’d say it’s more because we’ve waited...
Hmmm… wonder if...
Glad Cooper came on-board. What’s up with Bart?
Vote YES, BART. Do it! Your people NEED health...
yeah, and Bart’s not one....