Marco Rubio And Five Members Of Congress Voted For Florida's 'Scarlet Letter' Adoption Bill

[dust1n]

Sen. Marco Rubio (R) was among the Florida state legislators who voted for the so-called "Scarlet Letter" law in 2001 that required single mothers to publish their sexual histories in the newspaper in order to place their babies up for adoption.

Five U.S. congressmen -- Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R), Lois Frankel (D), Jeff Miller (R), Gus Bilirakis (R) and Dennis Ross (R) -- were state legislators at the time and voted for the controversial bill. Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D), Frederica Wilson (D), Daniel Webster (R) and Bill Posey (R), who were also state legislators back then, voted against it.

The law, which passed with overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, required unwed moms who wished to put their babies up for adoptions to post details about their recent sexual encounters in the newspaper in an attempt to contact the father, even if the woman was a victim of rape or incest. The purpose of the bill was to inform estranged biological fathers that their children were being adopted and give them the chance to intervene.

The "Scarlet Letter" law gained media attention this week after The Huffington Post reported that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) had advocated for the public shaming of unwed parents in his 1995 book. Bush allowed the controversial law to go into effect in 2001, but signed a repeal of it two years later after it was successfully challenged in court.

The fact that Rubio, a 2016 presidential candidate, supported the bill could inoculate Bush from criticism that he allowed it to go into effect if Bush decides to throw his hat in the ring.

The Gainesville Sun reported in 2002 that some lawmakers -- including Frankel, a longtime women's right activist -- did not realize the newspaper publication provision was in the bill when they voted for it. "I have to admit I'm horrified that I voted for this," Frankel told the Sun at the time.

Rubio and the other current members of Congress who supported the bill did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Marco Rubio And Five Members Of Congress Voted For Florida's 'Scarlet Letter' Adoption Bill


So, I don't remember this at all, because even when I was living in FL, I would have been 12.

What say you, gentle folk of RF?

 

[dust1n]

Let me first preface the discussion that the War on Woman is a complete fabrication invented by the Gay Agenda solely for destroying the family and enslaving middle-class men in perpetual servitude to women who refuse to be a spouse. Okay, now proceed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let me first preface the discussion that the War on Woman is a complete fabrication invented by the Gay Agenda solely for destroying the family and enslaving middle-class men in perpetual servitude to women who refuse to be a spouse. Okay, now proceed.

Yeah, yeah, yeah & the war on women is claimed by any poor wounded soul who believes
disagreeing with her is a personal attack upon her.

The purpose of notifying a potential father of his offspring is a worthy goal, even if not properly implemented in the bill.
How would you achieve it?

 

[dust1n]

Yeah, yeah, yeah & the war on women is claimed by any poor wounded soul who believes disagreeing with her is a personal attack upon her.

Mm, I was going more for the point that some members of the GOP have been more than happy to support a law that requires a rape victim to outline their rape in a newspaper addressed to their rapist, in case the rapist's child gets adopted without the knowledge and approval of the rapist.

I don't consider civil disagreements "a war." Do you prefer "War on Liberty?" I know that's a buzzword.

 

[Revoltingest]

Mm, I was going more for the point that some members of the GOP have been more than happy to support a law that requires a rape victim to outline their rape in a newspaper addressed to their rapist, in case the rapist's child gets adopted without the knowledge and approval of the rapist.

I don't consider civil disagreements "a war." Do you prefer "War on Liberty?" I know that's a buzzword.

"War on women" is pretty buzzy too.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Florida has some really really really screwed up politicians right now. Hate to be here really. And did you know that it is illegal for me to tie alligators to a fire hydrant? I didn't till it was too late.

 

[dust1n]

"War on women" is pretty buzzy too.

It is. This is one of those instances where two buzzwords overlap.

 

[dust1n]

Florida has some really really really screwed up politicians right now. Hate to be here really. And did you know that it is illegal for me to tie alligators to a fire hydrant? I didn't till it was too late.

It was somewhat sane until Rick Scott, who might be one of American's most corrupt politicians.

 

[dust1n]

Just in case it needed to be said, this is a GOP presidential candidate, and likely vice-presidential candidate for Walker.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think we need a "scarlet letter" for politicians. They can't go into politics unless they reveal all their secrets from the past in a world publication newspaper. They have to post all their past sexual relationships, all money transactions, all bribes, all falsified tax reports, everything they ever took or borrowed without returning, all of it, has to be posted online in a public website. Not until then can they run for office. How about it? (our government would then be empty.)

Do these Christian republicans ever get the story about "casting the first stone"? They want to shame other people and expose their "sin" to the world, but heck if they ever would want their own secret sins out in public.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It was somewhat sane until Rick Scott, who might be one of American's most corrupt politicians.

Yeah.....yeah.......yeah. He made himself filthy rich by passing a law that made all people on welfare take drug tests and signed a bill that sanctioned his own company to be the one to make those tests. He passed a law that told the government to give him tens of millions of dollars.

 

[dust1n]

Yeah.....yeah.......yeah. He made himself filthy rich by passing a law that made all people on welfare take drug tests and signed a bill that sanctioned his own company to be the one to make those tests. He passed a law that told the government to give him tens of millions of dollars.

LOL. That's Rick Scott Lite.

"Gov. Scott is giving Scrooge a run for his money — disenfranchising Florida voters while passing legislation benefiting the financial interests of himself and his donors.

Shortly after his election in 2010, Gov. Scott began a campaign to purge ineligible voters from voter rolls that was found to disproportionately target minority, Democratic, and independent voters. Less than two months before the 2012 election, Gov. Scott again sought to purge voter lists. In 2011, Gov. Scott signed a proposal to curtail early voting, a move largely blamed for hours-long waits at the polls. Gov. Scott and the legislature reversed these changes after the election.

Gov. Scott proposed legislation affecting welfare and Medicaid recipients that would substantially benefit Solantic, Inc., a chain of urgent-care and emergency service clinics he co-founded before assuming office. Gov. Scott also pushed to privatize Florida’s prisons, which would primarily benefit two private prison companies that donated thousands of dollars to his inauguration committee and PAC.

• Elected in 2010; running for reelection in 2014
• Proposed initiatives affecting welfare and Medicaid recipients that would financially benefit Solantic, Inc., a company he co-founded
• Led a campaign to purge voter rolls in Florida that disproportionately targeted minority, Democratic, and independent voters

Rick Scott - Florida | CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

In a brief, 60-day legislative session, he implemented a wide-ranging conservative agenda.

He slashed funding for public schools, disabled people, and the unemployed; gave health-care companies control of Medicaid; and privatized nearly all of the prisons in the southern part of the state. Meanwhile, he enacted some of the most restrictive voting laws Florida has seen since the 2000 election debacle.

In June, as the public outcry against his policies continued, one of Scott's top staffers resigned and another was transferred to the state Department of Veterans Affairs. The governor, watching his ship sink, hired a Tallahassee insider as his new chief of staff. He also backed off one of his most controversial executive orders, which required state employees to undergo drug tests.

Despite these changes, the influence of Scott's first, combustible legislative session has already been enormous. Here, New Times takes stock of his dirtiest accomplishments.

Outsourced Prisons to His Political Donors

Last year, the private prison industry gave nearly $1 million to political campaigns in Florida, according to the nonpartisan National Institute on Money in Politics. The majority of the cash went to Republicans, and the largest chunk, $822,000, came from the GEO Group, a Boca Raton-based prison company formerly known as Wackenhut Corrections. (GEO also contributed $25,000 to Scott's inauguration party.) The prison lobby's influence on the Republican-dominated Legislature was immediately evident.

In early February, Scott proposed a plan to transfer 1,500 inmates from state-run lockups to private ones. The next month, lawmakers in the state Senate slipped language into their massive budget bill that privatized nearly all of the state prisons in 18 counties, including Broward and Palm Beach. The budget passed in May, opening the door for the GEO Group and other companies to begin bidding for contracts.


Proponents said the prison contracts will go only to bidders who reduce costs by 7 percent, saving the state about $27 million a year. But a legislative analyst who testified before the state Senate in February admitted it was tough to figure out the cost savings, because private and public prisons often operate differently. "They're never apples to apples," analyst Byron Brown said.

And a 2010 study of prisons in Arizona, which also has a cost-savings requirement for its private lockups, questioned whether outsourcing is the cheapest option. The Arizona state auditor found that medium-security private prisons cost $1,200 more per inmate a year than state-run facilities. Reviewing prison studies in other states, the auditor also noted "cost savings from contracting with private prisons... are not guaranteed."

Enacted Jim Crow-Style Voting Laws

After squeaking into office with just 61,550 more votes than his opponent, Scott wasted no time in disenfranchising people who might oust him in the next election cycle. In March, the Florida Clemency Board — composed of Scott, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and other members of his cabinet — passed a ban on felon voting rights, forcing nonviolent offenders to wait five years after completing their sentences to apply to have their rights restored.

The new rule turned back the clock on Florida's voting laws. During the 2000 election, thousands of voters were wrongfully purged from the rolls because they were misidentified as felons. That mishap brought to light the painful fact that Florida had the largest number of disenfranchised felons in the nation — a disproportionate swath of whom were African-American.

Govs. Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist heeded the outcry over this injustice and made it easier for ex-felons to get their voting rights restored. But Scott undid all of their reforms, dismissing the racist implications of his decision.

The felon voting ban dates back to the years just following the Civil War. It was zealously employed — just like poll taxes — to keep African-Americans from voting, says Lance deHaven-Smith, a professor of public administration at Florida State University. "It was used to target and weaken voting rights for blacks, and that is what they're doing with it today," he says.

Scott wasn't done. In May, the Legislature passed new election requirements that can be used to prevent less-wealthy people — those who work long hours and move frequently — from voting. The law makes it tougher for get-out-the-vote groups to register new voters, requires voters to use a provisional ballot if they have moved from one county to another and not registered the address change before Election Day, and reduces the number of early voting days from 14 to eight.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit in Miami seeking to block implementation of the new law. Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida branch of the ACLU, called the law "a trifecta of voter suppression."

Rick Scott's dirtiest deeds | Miami New Times


TAMPA BAY, Florida - It may seem like a different Florida political figure finds him- or herself embroiled in scandal every week.

But in reality, it's every five days.

On Wednesday, the non-partisan watchdog group Integrity Florida will release a report identifying the Sunshine State as number one in the nation for political corruption.

From 2000 to 2010, there have been 781 federal convictions on corruption charges in Florida. That's an average of one every five days for 10 straight years.

"The corrupting influence of money in politics is the defining issue of our time," said Dan Krassner of Integrity Florida.

Integrity Florida's report will include lapses in the laws that allow:

• Elected - and nominated - officials to work for lobbying firms.
• Legislators to keep conflicts of interest secret until 15 days after a conflicted vote.
• Elected officials to blow off fines from the state with little-to-no penalty.

Furthermore, Krassner says the biggest problem is that the Florida Commission on Ethics can't launch an investigation of its own without first receiving a formal complaint.

"Florida's state ethics enforcement officers can't even start an investigation on their own," Krassner said. "Imagine any other law enforcement officer in Florida seeing a crime in progress and not being able to pursue the suspect. That's the state of ethics law enforcement in Florida today."

Florida: ''We're No. 1!'' for political corruption | wtsp.com

 

[dust1n]

The purpose of notifying a potential father of his offspring is a worthy goal, even if not properly implemented in the bill.
How would you achieve it?

Why would I think that a father has a particular right to be notified of a pregnancy he caused but was not already aware of? Sex isn't a legally binding contract.

What role does the state have in these sorts of affairs?

 

[lunamoth]

Florida has some really really really screwed up politicians right now. Hate to be here really. And did you know that it is illegal for me to tie alligators to a fire hydrant? I didn't till it was too late.

Lol! So totally frubal-worthy it made me sign in just to like this post.

 

[Revoltingest]

....Huffington Post reported that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) had advocated for the public shaming of unwed parents in his 1995 book.

This seemed particularly outrageous for a politician who's courting voters.
So I tried to find the direct quote from the book.
I couldn't get the book....unless I bought it (not happen'n).
I did find conflicting claims of quotes from it.
Jeb Bush In 1995: Unwed Mothers Should Be Publicly Shamed
No, Jeb Bush didn't say unwed mothers should be publicly shamed
Is there any convincing evidence (you know.....actual quotes instead of personal inferences by his opponents) that he actually said what they claim?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why would I think that a father has a particular right to be notified of a pregnancy he caused but was not already aware of? Sex isn't a legally binding contract.

First, a father cannot cause a pregnancy....it takes 2 people. (How's that for a smart arsed retort?)
Second, sex resulting in a pregnancy can create a legally binding obligation (a one sided contract).
Third, a great many men would like to be a father, & I say that they have a right to know if they have fathered a child (if notice is practical), particularly if the mother plans to give it up for adoption. It seems there's a prejudice that if a father doesn't know (for whatever reason), then the father wouldn't care. If this is believed, then why oppose notice?
And fourth, the father can be held liable for the child's support til 18 (& beyond). With legal liability ought to come some rights.

What role does the state have in these sorts of affairs?

The state heavily regulates adoption, & grants non-custodial parents legal standing.
Disagree or not, this is just the way it is.

 

[dust1n]

This seemed particularly outrageous for a politician who's courting voters.
So I tried to find the direct quote from the book.
I couldn't get the book....unless I bought it (not happen'n).
I did find conflicting claims of quotes from it.
Jeb Bush In 1995: Unwed Mothers Should Be Publicly Shamed
No, Jeb Bush didn't say unwed mothers should be publicly shamed
Is there any convincing evidence (you know.....actual quotes instead of personal inferences by his opponents) that he actually said what they claim?

I can only find the HuffPost quote.

Jeb Bush Stands by Controversial Comments on Single Mothers | Mediaite

Claims the book was ghost written.

Jeb Bush says view on unwed births 'hasn’t changed at all' | MSNBC

MSNBC shows his responding to it. When asked about Scarlett Letter legislation, which he signed in and signed the repeal bill two years later once challenge the court, it seems to be under the impression that it was a bill to help unwed mothers collect child support.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can only find the HuffPost quote.

Jeb Bush Stands by Controversial Comments on Single Mothers | Mediaite

Claims the book was ghost written.

Jeb Bush says view on unwed births 'hasn’t changed at all' | MSNBC

MSNBC shows his responding to it. When asked about Scarlett Letter legislation, which he signed in and signed the repeal bill two years later once challenge the court, it seems to be under the impression that it was a bill to help unwed mothers collect child support.

I still didn't see any from his text or speech which advocates shaming unwed mothers.
Since it is legal to lift direct quotations for such a purpose, but they don't, it begins to appear that Huff Po is making it up.

 

[dust1n]

First, a father cannot cause a pregnancy....it takes 2 people. (How's that for a smart arsed retort?)

This isn't the case in the rape, which as typical with pro-life initiatives, appears to not be a consideration at all. Secondly, I'm not sure I really agree. No one else but me is responsible for where my sperm drops. Even if I engage in sex, I have virtually zero chance of being impregnated

Second, sex resulting in a pregnancy can create a legally binding obligation (a one sided contract).

Third, a great many men would like to be a father, & I say that they have a right to know if they have fathered a child (if notice is practical), particularly if the mother plans to give it up for adoption.

But the mother could just keep the child and never inform anyways?

It seems there's a prejudice that if a father doesn't know (for whatever reason), then the father wouldn't care. If this is believed, then why oppose notice?

Fair enough. Notice makes sense for the purpose addition with (if notice is practical) emphasized.

And fourth, the father can be held liable for the child's support til 18 (& beyond). With legal liability ought to come some rights.

After an adoption?

The state heavily regulates adoption, & grants non-custodial parents legal standing.
Disagree or not, this is just the way it is.

"Many adoptions take place without involving the birthfather in any way. He might not receive any counseling, choose the adoptive parents, meet the adoptive parents, see the baby, or sign any papers. But regardless of his participation, he has the same rights as the birthmother. In other words, a birthfather is that child's father unless he voluntarily relinquishes his rights as a parent or has his rights terminated by the court.

All of this is well and good — provided that the man who fathered the child is aware that he has a child and is available when the adoption decisions are made so that he can be involved. But what happens when a man doesn't discover until after the fact that he fathered a child and that child is now in an adoptive home? Or when he hits the road and isn't around to give his consent to the adoption plan that the birthmother makes? These situations, and others like them, directly affect what has to happen before the child becomes available for adoption and how much risk is involved. The following sections show you what you need to know.

All reputable agencies and attorneys follow certain procedures to ensure that the birthfathers, if they can be located, are aware of the adoption plans and know their rights. And if the birthfathers can't be located, these agencies and attorneys make sure you're aware of the risks involved going forward. Anyone who tells you not to worry about the birthfather because he's not around, doesn't know about the pregnancy or adoption plan, or just "isn't interested" in what's going on is playing with fire — and the house that may burn down is yours. Every adoption that proceeds without the birthfather's consent carries a degree of risk. The particular situation determines how much risk. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise."

Adoption Facts: Understanding the Birthfather's Rights - For Dummies

This is I don't understand. Seems frivolous to me. If I was a woman, I'd just get an abortion then. Certainly I agree with an attempt to contact. Publishing your sexual behaviors the night in question in hopes someone recognizes that one night is so beyond absurd.

 

[dust1n]

I still didn't see any from his text or speech which advocates shaming unwed mothers.
Since it is legal to lift direct quotations for such a purpose, but they don't, it begins to appear that Huff Po is making it up.

It appears to be what HuffPo derived from:

"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."

I'm not actually sure how you take this...

Unlike the sexist HuffPo though, at least Bush was clear in his condemnation of young men and young women equally.