We eatin', We winnin'!: Kansas now mandates a paternity test at birth

Why the Kansas Paternity Test Bill Stings


MrsSoersdal
Monday, February 28, 2011


I haven't felt right about the Kansas paternity testing bill since I first read about it, but it's taken me some time to articulate exactly why this is. In case you haven't heard about it, this bill would mandate a paternity test for every newborn in the state. In this way, every man could be certain of his paternity before his name was written on a birth certificate. Legal action could be taken against parents who refused to comply. At first glance, it's tricky to argue against it. Certainly men have a right to know that a child is biologically theirs. Women who haven't cheated have nothing to worry about. Women who have cheated, become pregnant, and are lying to their significant others are certainly guilty of, at a minimum, a good degree of cruelty. For men who may find themselves in this position, saying "well you should just trust her" seems insufficient. Yet something about this bill rubbed me the wrong way from the very start. There just seemed to be something very sinister and unfair at the core of it.

I don't mean to say that men should be obligated to raise other men's children unknowingly. I doubt anyone would argue that in the case of a man who barely knows the woman who is bearing a child she claims is his, or a man who highly suspects his significant other of bearing somebody else's child, particularly in cases of child support conflicts, a paternity test should be off the table as an option. Fortunately, it isn't. Any time a man feels his paternity is in question, he can order a paternity test. In the afore-mentioned situations, lawyers typically advise men to get these tests and women are obligated to comply. This has already been taken care of. What this bill purports to do is save men from having to spend their lives and money supporting children who are not theirs. There are already things in place to help men avoid that. Therefore, what this bill actually does is help men who have a slight suspicion of their significant other's fidelity to avoid awkward conversations. It presupposes that the problem of female infidelity is so pervasive and so harmful that it is worthy of government intervention. Now men who are suspicious but too cowardly to ask can rest easy because their peace of mind has now been deemed important enough to be a government prerogative. Kansas will now police women's sex-lives, having created a legally endorsed method of checking her loyalty and tattling to her man.

Institutionalized protection of the "support" that men offer to the women and children in their lives fosters the incorrect and offensive cultural paranoia that women in all cases are using their childbearing abilities to hold men hostage and financially drain them. It diminishes the physical, financial and emotional sacrifices women make for their children to a sweet little confidence scheme. This attitude reduces society's expectations of men to nothing more than financial providers and canonizes those who fulfill it. It disacknowledges women's abilities to provide equally or even predominantly for their families.

State Rep Melody McCray-Miller (D-Wichita) claims not to know how much this will cost, so I did some math for her. Google tells me that you can get a super cheap paternity test with a cheek swab on your baby for $80 or less! Blood tests for official use usually cost more but let's assume the state can get a good discount. In 2008, which was a slow year for births in Kansas, 114 babies were born per day. Rep McCray-Miller insists this would not be added to the hospital bill, which means the government would pay for it which means even on the absolute cheapest year with the absolute cheapest paternity tests and assuming implementation costs nothing, Kansas will spend $3.3 million dollars per year on this. I suppose Kansas legislators can't think of a single other problem that could be solved with $3.3 million that is more important than a few men who might be unknowingly raising children that aren't theirs but I can. Oh, sure, I could go for the easy ones like clothing and feeding the poor or subsidizing health care for the uninsured or creating jobs, but I can see that Kansas is very interested in gender wars.

How about rape prevention screening? What they could do is they could have school counselors screen all teenage boys for their potential to rape women. Those who seem to have entitled fucking women-hating attitudes could be forced to undergo intensive deprogramming and in extreme cases, chemical castration. This would be more beneficial to society than the paternity screening bill as it would work to prevent ACTUAL crimes that harm people in more places than their WALLETS. Sure there will occasionally be false positives but paternity tests aren't 100% correct either, are they? Sure in theory they are, but with 114 being done per day, some samples are bound to get mislabeled or contaminated. Hey, calm down, men! If you're not a rapist, you have nothing to worry about!

http://mrssoersdal.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-kansas-paternity-test-bill-stings.html

ACTUAL crimes??! MADAM, these are Crimes of the Heart as well as Financial.

from the comments, author writes:

MrsSoersdal said...
Cuckolding is not a crime, babies are not purchases that men are saddled with, and this bill amounts to search without warrant. It's an invasion of privacy, plain and simple.
February 28, 2011 7:52 PM

 

just wanted to LOL at that picture, i love that scene where he dances haha, so many classic dances on that show

 

It is a good thing because on down the road people cant say shit. the law always been in favor for the women no matter what she did and leave men liable for some shit

 

In the state of Florida, if the wife cheats and gets pregnant, the husband is obligated to take care of the child. No child support is required by the man who got the other's wife pregnant.

 

I think its a pretty good idea, for many reasons.

I have a friend that a few days ago, JUST found out who his dad is and that he had siblings. The mother for some reason did want to share this information. He is beyond pissed. This emotional roller-coaster could have been avoided if the fathers name was on the birth-certificate.