Jeb Bush forced single mothers publish sexual histories in Florida newspapers.

[RandySF]

Public shaming would be an effective way to regulate the “irresponsible behavior” of unwed mothers, misbehaving teenagers and welfare recipients, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) argued in his 1995 book Profiles in Character.

In a chapter called "The Restoration of Shame,” the likely 2016 presidential candidate made the case that restoring the art of public humiliation could help prevent pregnancies “out of wedlock.”

One of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame. Many of these young women and young men look around and see their friends engaged in the same irresponsible conduct. Their parents and neighbors have become ineffective at attaching some sense of ridicule to this behavior. There was a time when neighbors and communities would frown on out of wedlock births and when public condemnation was enough of a stimulus for one to be careful.

Bush points to Nathaniel Hawthorne's 1850 novel The Scarlet Letter, in which the main character is forced to wear a large red "A" for "adulterer" on her clothes to punish her for having an extramarital affair that produced a child, as an early model for his worldview. "Infamous shotgun weddings and Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter are reminders that public condemnation of irresponsible sexual behavior has strong historical roots,” Bush wrote.

As governor of Florida in 2001, Bush had the opportunity to test his theory on public shaming. He declined to veto a very controversial bill that required single mothers who did not know the identity of the father to publish their sexual histories in a newspaper before they could legally put their babies up for adoption. He later signed a repeal of the so-called "Scarlet Letter" law in 2003 after it was successfully challenged in court.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/09/jeb-bush-1995-book_n_7542964.html?1433860308

[kimbutgar]

1. I wonder what stupid person thinks considering Her daughter had a child out of wedlock?

[kelly1mm]

2. Since an adoption would terminate the rights of both parents to the child there has to be

either consent by both parents to the adoption (preferred) or, at minimum, some type of due process before the other parents rights are terminated IMO. This law was an attempt to provide that due process.

Of course if you disagree that both parents have equal rights to the child then perhaps you would not have the same opinion.

[geek tragedy]

4. You're defending the Scarlet Letter Law. On a progressive website.

This is not A Voice For Men.

Perhaps you are confused.

That law was obviously unconstitutional and one of the most sexist, hideous invasions of privacy this side of forced transvaginal sonograms.

And you are here defending it using a bullshit due process argument.

[kelly1mm]

6. I am defending the rights of both parents to have due process before their

parental rights are terminated. I don't think that is really controversial. I also do not believe a single father should have the right to have a child adopted without the consent/notification/basic due process safeguards of the mother.

Does that make me a radical feminist?

Maybe a little more conversation and a little less namecalling would make DU a better place.

[geek tragedy]

7. That is a dishonest argument as applied to this law.

The Scarlet Letter Law was not "due" process.

It is rather amazing that anyone who ostensibly has the correct number of chromosomes thinks this law constituted due process.

[kelly1mm]

9. Is it possible for you to have a conversation/disagreement without name calling/insults? nt

[geek tragedy]

11. You should learn what "due process" actually means

before invoking it to defend hideously unconstitutional legislation.

Hint: the constitutional definition of "due process" does not encompass violating someone else's constitutional rights.

[BillZBubb]

36. You win the dumb argument of the day contest.

This is not a due process issue at all. This is an attempt to humiliate people and is a violation of their rights.

Do you also believe the recent spate of right wing anti-abortion legislation requiring ultra-sounds and that clinics be accredited surgical centers is about protecting women?

Or that the Patriot Act was about patriotism?

[kelly1mm]

48. To each of your 3 questions no, don't believe any of those asertions. Do you believe that both

parents have equal parental rights to a child (before the Court determines custody) and that those rights cannot be terminated without due process?

[geek tragedy]

61. +1. If only they valued women's rights as much as they valued guns. nt

[KT2000]

58. there is a mechanism in place

that would see to it that the father maintains his rights. It is his responsibility to keep up with the women with whom he has had sex to determine whether or not he is a father. It is not the responsibility of the woman to notify anyone. Supposedly these are men who know that sexual intercourse can result in pregnancy.
If he does not want to be a father he should take the best precautions available and that way he could relive himself of having to keep track of the women in his life.

In my book, failure to do this is abdication of any so-called rights.

[marym625]

69. Holy shit!

If you want to advocate for a father's right, how about advocating men pay attention to what happens to women they have set with instead of shaming women?

Jesus christ on a cheese sandwich! That's just barbaric

[1monster]

73. If due process was involved, the adoption agency wanting to make sure the father's rights are

considered, could ask the mother for that information. There is no reason on Earth to publish it in a newspaper.

Girls who keep their babies and apply for public assistance are required to name the father/possible father of her child. Then the government goes after the father/possible father for reimbursement.

I'm guessing, that in most cases (I know that this is not true in all cases), the father has already abandoned his paternal rights and that is why he isn't in the picture.

No, you don't sound like a radical feminist. You sound like someone who hasn't thought your position through to its logical conclusions.

[lark]

90. Guy meets girl at bar, they get drunk and have sex.

They go their separate ways and never see each other again. You seriously think that guy has rights to the child? Do you really support forcing the mother to "slut shame" herself in the name of this guy who would probably have conipitions if she even suggested he was the father and had any responsibilities?

[StevieM]

12. Yeah, because it's not like there is any history in this country of trying to facilitate adoptions

whether both parents want it or not.

I don't want our whole country to turn into Utah when it comes to dismissing fathers' rights and allowing the adoption industry to run rampant. The rest of us are awful enough as it is when it comes to ripping children away from their blood relatives.

I don't know anything about this particular law and I don't like the way it sounds. But we definitely have to do something about adoption agencies deliberately trying to deny fathers the right to parent their children.

And to be clear, I am also passionate about preventing agencies and lawyers from bullying women and girls into coerced adoptions.

[geek tragedy]

13. "I don't know anything about this particular law."

Then what, pray tell, are you trying to accomplish by arguing about it?

[StevieM]

17. I'm not arguing about it. I oppose it. But the subject of adoption came up and I am not

going to fail to take the opportunity to condemn coerced adoptions and involuntary TPRs.

In case you haven't realized, Republicans have a dream. They want EVERY SINGLE CHILD born out of wedlock to be given up for adoption. I don't. And I will speak out against their vision--a return to the Baby Scoop Era--every chance I get.

And perhaps I chose my words poorly when I said "I don't know anything." I know what I read in the article. I just meant that I was unfamiliar with this law, or the debate surrounding it, until tonight.

[geek tragedy]

21. No one is suggesting that the constitution be thrown out when a father's rights

are at stake.

This law was intended to shame single mothers.

[StevieM]

25. And I am passionately opposed to shaming single mothers. Jeb Bush and other Republicans

want to return us to those days....the Baby Scoop Era. That is worst thing we can do.

And if you think that "no one" is suggesting that fathers' rights should be ignored--I disagree. The people shaming single mothers very much want to ignore fathers' rights, because that gets in their way of promoting adoption.

They also want to ignore mothers' rights. So in some states you can bring a woman adoption papers in the hospital, 12 hours after delivery, when the mother is drugged out of her mind.

[gopiscrap]

71. Thank you!

[Fred Sanders]

5. You forgot that if the father is unknown and uninvolved no consent is needed. Disposal of notice and consent

happens in family law all the time.

[kelly1mm]

8. I did not forget. I do it all the time for my clients. But in the jurisdiction I practice in (MD),

if there is no father listed on the birth certificate and the mother was unmarried at the time of the birth then you can petition to the court for an adoption without a father named. The court is required to investigate the circumstances surrounding the conception to determine if the identity of the father can be reasonably determined before allowing the adoption to go forward.

[geek tragedy]

10. Forcing a woman to publish her sexual history

is not an example of "reasonably identifying" the identity of the father.

[StevieM]

15. Agreed. The law is bad. But we also need to make certain that fathers who object to an adoption

are given the opportunity to parent their children. No human being should be forced to become a birth parent against their wishes.

It is disgusting that Jeb Bush wants to go back to the days when single moms were shamed. Like his brother, he seems to yearn for a return to the Baby Scoop Era.

[kelly1mm]

16. I have been involved with over 70 adoptions in the past 12 years. In about 10

of those no father was listed. In two of those 10 cases the judge did not believe my client concerning why/how she did not know the identity of the father. In both those two cases the Court ordered a publication notifying potential fathers.

In one case the client withdrew consent and the adoption was dismissed before publication.

In the other case my client requested a rehearing and named the father (who then consented to the adoption) and the adoption went forward.

My point being that both parents have equal parental rights (at least here in MD) and the rights of both parents should not be terminated without due process.

[geek tragedy]

18. Are you really confused as to the difference between

service by publication re: a legal proceeding and forcing a woman to set forth in detail her sexual history?

Are you aware of any service by publication that requires anyone to publish his or her:

name
age
height,
hair and eye color,
race
and weight
as well as details of the dates and places of sexual encounters and a description of all of their sexual partners?

[kelly1mm]

28. Since it was my case I am.intimately familiar with both of the orders. Basically in

the first case the mother had told the judge she had 3 one night stands with individuals she met at a certain bar in our county but did not remember their names. The judge did not believe her. The judge ordered that she publish once a week, for 3 consecutive weeks that she had had sexual relations with 3 unknown men at that particular bar over the month of X, year Y and that a child was conceived as a result and that the child was up for adoption. The publication was to include her full name, age and physical characteristics. Like I said above she then withdrew her consent and the adoption was dismissed.

The second case was a bit more convoluted in that she mother knew the identity of one sexual partner that could possibly be the father but said that the actual father was a Craigslist person she had a one night stand with and did not know his name. The same judge as above issued a very similar order for publication. My client then named the father at a rehearing and the judge rescinded the order of publication. The father then consented to the adoption and the adoption went through.

[geek tragedy]

35. If your story is true, the judge violated the constitution and is a misogynist to boot.

A competent attorney would have appealed.

[kelly1mm]

45. You really do seem to have a problem discussing issues without being snide, rude and generally

unpleasant. There really is no need to make this personal.

Have a good day ......

[treestar]

97. He didn't believe her?

I don't see what grounds he could have for that. And the publication he ordered has to be unconstitutional! How awful!

[treestar]

96. It is impractical

Maybe some day there will be DNA data banks on all persons born, and you can run a check on the child to find the father. Not now though. You're limited to who the mother wants to name. There's no way to force that out of her in a decent and free society.

Fathers just don't have any rights until the mother says they do. Seems unfair but there's no reason to change it. And how many men want the child when the woman doesn't? So few that it's not worth pursuing.

[Liberal_in_LA]

3. ugh

[BlueJazz]

14. And this is from a person who is a member of a group of people who think...

...that Sex education is disgusting and a waste of time.

[kiranon]

19. Men have an obligation to check back with their

sexual partners to see if it resulted in a pregnancy. Otherwise, it is abandonment of the child and a failure to provide support during the pregnancy. It should be a prima facie reason to terminate a father's rights and is in many states. Requiring a woman to delineate her sexual history is sick, punitive and says to me that Jeb Bush hates women. What other groups will he require to wear a "red" letter if he is elected? Doubt he will use "D" for drugs or "S" for smuggler.

[StevieM]

22. You think a man has abandoned a child who he doesn't know exists?

If a woman is pregnant, and she knows who the father is, I believe she is morally obligated to tell him about the baby before she goes through with an adoption.

[geek tragedy]

23. That's generally correct. Though in case involving rape, incest, and domestic abuse

certainly that doesn't hold.

Of course, a woman can abort the fetus without providing notice.

[StevieM]

26. Agreed on all counts. (eom)

[kiranon]

34. Yes. Having adopted 2 children, that is exactly what the court

held. After publishing notice and no one came forward, or ever did, the fathers' rights were terminated. Birthmom did not know who the father was in one case and in the other he had his then girlfriend (mother of another child he didn't support) tell the birthmom that he was dead. He later turned up alive (had been avoiding his responsibilities on purpose). He knew he had a son but didn't come forward then or ever. Do not believe the mother has any moral obligation to involve a father if he is not interested in finding out if their encounter resulted in a child. It's not hard to find out - just look.

[StevieM]

38. Well then we have different beliefs. I do think that she has such an obligation.

I hope you are doing open adoptions.

[kiranon]

56. Both are open adoptions n/t

[jeff47]

37. Yes. He had sex. If he does not check back to see if it resulted in pregnancy

then he abandoned the child.

[StevieM]

39. I strongly disagree. (eom)

[jeff47]

40. Because it is so much trouble to check back in a month? (nt)

[StevieM]

42. I don't think most women would appreciate a one-night stand contacting them a month later

to ask if they are pregnant.

Or what about a BF and GF who broke up right after conception? Would she want him to call her a month later to verify that she isn't pregnant?

If a woman knows who the father is there is (usually) no reason she can't tell him she's pregnant.

[jeff47]

43. Why is it up to the woman to follow up?

So the girlfriend should be thrilled to call up her ex-boyfriend in your scenario?

Why is it the woman's job to follow up after sex? We menfolk are somehow incapable of keeping track of where we left our sperm?

[StevieM]

46. Because the woman is the one who knows that there is a baby coming. (eom)

[jeff47]

51. Because the man's an idiot?

The man either knows he effectively used birth control (aka the condom didn't break), or it's very likely that a baby is coming.

If he wants to be a father, he's going to have to do a hell of a lot more unpleasant things than make one phone call. If he can't be bothered to make even that trivial effort, why should he get to assert parental rights?

[SpartanDem]

91. You think she'd more thrilled getting a call from every single former partner?

as opposed to having the one who impregnated her?

[jeff47]

93. I think if that former partner doesn't do so, he demonstrated he isn't interested in being a parent.

[LanternWaste]

66. Your emphatic denial to act responsibly in this scenario is noted.

Your emphatic denial to act responsibly in this scenario is noted.

[prayin4rain]

67. I agree. If they cared whether or not they are parents, we should assume that they would. Slept on

rights are often legally lost.

[Johonny]

20. Do Republicans not comprehend literature at all?

Can you seriously read The Scarlet Letter and think the author thought this was a good idea for society? This is dumber than Ted Cruz not knowing the point of Green Eggs and Ham. This is stupid on a Bush level of reality. I'm convinced there is no smart brother. There is just mean and really mean.

[greatlaurel]

29. Thank you for pointing out how Mr. Bush, with an expensive education, doesn't comprehend the book.

It is clear from his statement that he never bothered to actually read The Scarlet Letter.

Your observation about the lack of a smart brother is spot on.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

24. Does that apply to rich assholes with one child being a vandal, the other a junkie? Nt

[RandySF]

52. And the third a stalker.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

54. Wasn't the vandal the stalker? It's hard to keep up. It seems to be a problem in the republican

community. Shitty parenting that is.

[RandySF]

55. Noelle is the addict, George is the stalker and John is the cop fighter.

Of course, none of them have ever spent a day in jail.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

57. Guess I missed the cop fighter. I did remember that the recently elected stalker

had also vandalized someone's yard with his car. Holy fuck! Is there anyone on that family who's not a first rate douche? ( He asked rhetorically......)

[RandySF]

60. It was the lawn of the girl's family the night be broke into her bedroom.

[AuntPatsy]

27. He honestly makes me ill...a horrible person

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Kick

I remember this shit.

[NanceGreggs]

31. How about ...

... publishing the names of family members of pResidents who lied a country into war, turned a surplus into the largest deficit in US history, read "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren while the country was under attack, etc.?

"One of the reasons a man like me is able to run for the presidency is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame."

The fact that this idiot is touted as "the smart brother" goes a long way to explaining just how fuckin' stupid the entire family is.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

32. And this so-called "man" wants to be President.

He must not get anywhere near the White House, except maybe on a public tour.

[muntrv]

33. So what about Bristol Palin, Jeb?

[The Second Stone]

41. Didn't work with any of his siblings or for himself

Personally, I think publicly shaming people other than elected officials for misconduct is idiotic. That's quite a statement on the "profile of character" of Jebbie Bush. He has no shame.

[frylock]

44. Profiles in Character?!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

47. Fuck You. Mastuh Jeb.

And Fuck You in advance for what I predict will be your next move:

Legally collecting data on Bad Women and using it to provide information sharing to corporate executives. The Job Providers, you know.

They would pay you for it, I bet.

They would pay you....
For women and the information on them, that is. So useful.

[FrankUnderwood]

49. If such a law was enacted on Congress, about 500 men would have some

Serious explaining to do.

[Dwayne Hicks]

50. Its over

For Jeb this and the terri Shaivo situation are more than enough to crush his election hopes. Welcome to the WH President Clinton.

[Mz Pip]

53. But the GOP applauded Bristol Palin.

Bristol and her wayward boyfriend were all the rage at the GOP 2008 convention. It's okay when it's a Republican.

Not so much if it's a Democrat.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

59. HIS mother should go through a public,....oh wait,...she has.

[Blue Owl]

62. Sounds like the kind of Sunday reading Jebthro would enjoy

[shenmue]

63. How was this legal? WTF?!

[madfloridian]

64. Unfortunately, some powerful FL Democrats pushed that law.

It was painful to see Pam Bondi call them out on it, considering the anti-woman behavior of FL Republicans.

From 2010:

Scarlet Letter Law came back to bite Florida Dems in the butt today.

This post tells how Dan Gelber and Skip Campbell supported the bill.

[Gothmog]

65. I am beginning to believe that W is the smarter brother of these two

[samsingh]

68. the bushies appear to be very evil - the more we find out

[gopiscrap]

70. What a fucking pig!

What is wrong with people who vote for a shit stain like this self entitled puke?

[meow2u3]

72. What did the unwed father get? A medal?

Why isn't the unwed father ever shamed for his "hit and run" tactics, i.e., getting a woman or girl pregnant and leaving her to hold the bag?

Personally, I think if unwed mothers should be publicly shamed, unwed fathers, especially the "hit and run" types, should be, too--and equally shamed for using a girl for sex and then saddling her with all the responsibility of raising the kid. What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

[LynneSin]

74. Did Jeb Bush actually read the 'Scarlett Letter'? Or did he just read the highlights *spoilers*

Did Jeb Bush realize who punished Hester Pryne and who baby Pearl's father was.

So how is public shaming actually going to work.

Personally I think we should just put a Scarlett DA on Jeb Bush's suits to denote he is a Dumbass.

(spoilers for the few people who haven't read the book or watched the wreteched Demi Moore movie)

[noiretextatique]

75. 1850...conservacons really do want to turn back the clock

I suggest Jeb lead the way by donning a scarlet I for idiot

[KamaAina]

76. This has got to be some kind of record.

Your thread is doing 25 times better than mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026810525

[marble falls]

77. So misogyny is every bit as dead as is racism. Register. Vote.

[NCTraveler]

78. K&R nt.

[Enthusiast]

79. We were right all along. Jeb Bush is one sick fuck. Well....................that makes all of them.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[valerief]

80. Because he belongs to the Gyno Oppression Party. nt

[CanonRay]

81. The Scarlet Letter was set in the years 1642-1649

We now have a definitive answer to the question of how far back in time the GOP wishes to take us. Thanks Jeb.

[awoke_in_2003]

82. "has strong historical roots"

So does slavery. Just because something has strong historical roots does not mean it is good.

[Vinca]

83. That's astonishing . . . even for a Republican.

Why on earth does any woman vote for them?

[0rganism]

84. methinks mr. bush may have misunderstood the intent of The Scarlet Letter

not that it was my favorite piece of literature either back in high school, i rank it slightly higher than Pride & Prejudice on my scale of adolescent tolerability

still even i was able to recognize there was more to the story than slut-shaming.

[lostnfound]

85. If you want to protect your parental rights, it would be wise to avoid sex with uncommitted partners

Women have risks associated with sex that simply can't be equalized (a man doesn't carry for 9 months or go through childbirth). Unfortunate physical fact.
Men have risks associated with sex that simply can't be equalized: no way to know if a pregnancy results unless he stays in touch with the woman. Unfortunate physical fact. If you want to know if a pregnancy results, you'd better pick your partners wisely. If not committed, at least look for honesty and integrity.

[RandySF]

86. And what does that have to do with dragging people's sex lives through the papers?

[lostnfound]

88. I oppose dragging it through the papers...

There's nothing about procreation that is fair, and although it is unfortunate that some guys may never learn that they have offspring, it is not something that can be fixed by dragging people's sex lives through the papers.

[KentuckyWoman]

87. I agree with Jeb

Not about unwed mothers. But I'm pretty sure if we hook Jeb up "Truman Show" style for the rest of his miserable life it will get him uninvited to family functions.

[Matariki]

89. They should have all listed Jeb Bush and every member of the Florida Legislature.

That is seriously f'd up. What a creep.

[The Wizard]

92. Sounds like we was setting up a place to troll for

"eligible" women.

[mstinamotorcity2]

94. He was living

vicariously through their lives. He doesn't seem like a hot bed of sexiness to me.

[mahina]

95. Profiles in Douchery, more like.

What an appalling knob.

[lonestarnot]

98. Beautiful minder.

[Tab]

99. I remember this

it was a horrible approach

[TNNurse]

100. It is a hateful, vindictive policy

which they would be sure none of their children would have to follow if "something happened that is a private family matter". Just like daughters of wealthy and influential people will always have access to abortion.

It is making sure that women and especially poorer women, "know their place."

[still_one]

101. Yup, the Dems have a lot of bush garbage like this