View Single Post
Old 01-03-2013, 06:08 PM   #2885
dykeumentary
Member

How Do You Identify?:
butch dyke
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NJ
Posts: 449
Thanks: 341
Thanked 1,548 Times in 359 Posts
Rep Power: 19160663
dykeumentary Has the BEST Reputationdykeumentary Has the BEST Reputationdykeumentary Has the BEST Reputationdykeumentary Has the BEST Reputationdykeumentary Has the BEST Reputationdykeumentary Has the BEST Reputationdykeumentary Has the BEST Reputationdykeumentary Has the BEST Reputationdykeumentary Has the BEST Reputationdykeumentary Has the BEST Reputationdykeumentary Has the BEST Reputation
Default

I'm sure there is much more to this story than Rueters/Yahoo is posting in this report. The feminist in me fears the worst. Also, as someone who watches poor women's rights get trampled on, I guess I just wonder what worker at the Kansas Department of Children and Families gave this story to the press, and if that was legal. I assume they are poor because Medicaid must have been involved at the birth if they have a $6K bill, and need more help now. Aren't there privacy laws? Who benefits from selling this sad story.
I haven't seen a photo, but if she is a woman of color... Well we all know where this is headed.

They also make sure to mention the donor's working class job.

I also assume there was an agreement (that will be produced in court, but not reported by Yahoo) because they must have had the guy tested for HIV and other diseases before using the sperm.

And if there was no agreement and this poor women just put untested fluids into her body, then she might have mental/emotional problems (which should remain as private as any medical condition should). This is the kind of lurid "look at what stupid poor women do" that Jerry Springer and his ilk have made millions on.

I'm with the NCLR on this: let's apply the law fairly.
dykeumentary is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to dykeumentary For This Useful Post: