As a Southerner, I have always felt more approved to declare “damn Yankee” than I have upon seeing this piece of news.
Up in Massachusetts, House Bill 4750 merely passed the state Senate and was headed for the governor’s office to get signed into law as of yesterday.
Advertisement
What this act does is change the terms “mother” and “father” on fresh birth certificates with “person who gave baby” and “other family”.
Bursting: Bill ,# H4750 merely passed the Senate in MA. It may remove the word “father” on delivery credentials in the name of “legal lineage equality”.
It would also change the term “man” &, “woman” with “persons” and remove “mother” with “person who gave birth”.
It will now … photograph. twitter.com/EcXqYJH5mT
— Libs of TikTok ( @libsoftiktok ) July 31, 2024
Yes, actually. I am laughing, too ( and cringing ).
The Massachusetts Women’s Caucus ‘ apparent support for this is what makes it even more ironic and quite ridiculous.
No joke, according to ABC4, State Rep. Hannah Kane ( R, somehow ), who also sponsored the bill said,” The Women’s Caucus endorsed this bill… because we know that there are many paths to parenthood, and our laws need to be updated to reflect the diversity of families”.
Which also necessitates a mother and a dad even if the child is adopted by someone else or is n’t raised by either of them?
The bill appears to be about that because it has to do with establishing legitimate parentage and the right of adopted children to learn who their biological parents are.
Advertisement
This is stated in the Massachusetts ‘ rules code that states:
If the mother of the child was or is married, the child’s birth took place during the wedding or within three hundred days after its termination, and the boy’s mother is or was the family’s husband at the time the baby was or became a parent, then a person who is or was the family’s husband does not file a paternity complaint under this section.
But this costs may also change “mother” to “person who gave birth”.
Legalese is troublesome and intended to eliminate any confusion, but is it really important in this regard? Whether or not the child views the “person who gave baby” as their mother or not, the “person who gave delivery” also has a motherhood.
Same thing with turning “father” into “other family”. That one is absurd perhaps by language standards because it only serves to clarify matters further: legalese’s intentions are still unclear. If they wanted to keep this same strange degrading tone, they could have said “impregnator”. That single actually makes sense, but that is too much for those who believe otherwise.
It’s like the judge’s version of that joke about people rubbing female children’s stomach and saying” thanks” but never doing an equivalent sign for the father and saying” great work”.
Advertisement
So why do this? This act, according to Kane, “makes substantial strides toward supporting babies born through assisted reproductive technologies and guarantees justice for LGBTQ people establish parentage.”
And how is it supposed to accomplish that by rebranding the really important middle-person and middle-woman as the “person who gave delivery” and “other family”?
Back in May, Illinois passed a similar legislation turning plain speech into bulky, odd mouthfuls, by rebranding criminals, as in, you know, thieves, into” justice-impacted people”.
There’s a reason Shakespeare once said,” Brevity is the soul of wit”.
