The other day, the New York State Legislature passed a bill that replaces the terms “mother”, “father”, “paternity”, and “putative father” with “gestating parent”, “non-gestating parent”, “parentage”, and “alleged parent” in an attempt to promote inclusivity as well as dealing with child custody, parental, domestic relations, and education laws. The bill is now heading to Governor Kathy Hochul’s desk. If approved, the bill will become law and thus most likely cause confusion.
Such legislation is not only unnecessary, but opens doors to more woke terminology.
No doubt this bill is the brainchild of the transgender activists who want to impose their demands on the rest of society.
This bill is also a war on the family, something that originated with Karl Marx, who wanted to abolish the family by “liberating” women from motherhood in order for them to devote themselves to the state while children could be reared by “the collective”, which in turn would result in the state being everyone’s parent.
It should also be noted that this bill is 15,000 words.
But regardless of the length, one has to wonder what the penalties are for using the wrong terminology mandated in this bill. Fines? Jail time? Loss of custody of children? And who would this legislation apply to? The parents and other relatives? Teachers? Social workers? Law enforcement?
New York is not alone in regards to such ridiculous proposals. In Wisconsin, Governor Tony Evers wants to remove gendered language from state law. Examples of such proposed changes would replace “mother” with “inseminated person” or “parent who gave birth to the child”, replace “father” with “parent”, and “wife” and “husband” with “spouse”.
Meanwhile, in Oregon, there is a proposed ballot measure that, if it qualifies for the ballot and is approved by voters, would expand the state’s animal cruelty laws by outlawing hunting, fishing, and the slaughter of livestock. In addition, the measure would prohibit scientific research on animals, operating rodeos, and operating commercial poultry farms.
No doubt the animal rights are behind this measure, which would have a negative impact on Oregon’s economy and environment (i.e. wildlife management) if it became law.
I would not be surprised if the gun control supporters were also involved.
Needless to say, these proposals are not only unnecessary, but they also infringe upon the rights of Americans. And if they were to pass, then what is stop other states from adopting similar measures?
Thus, such proposals need to be defeated.
