Campfield’s Anti-Fatherhood Campaign

Rachel wrote about Campfield’s nonsense last night, too.  And she noticed something interesting.  Campfield has submitted a bill (HB0807) that replicates state law 68-3-504.  And when I say “replicates,” I mean “is almost word for word the same in the short form” in that it requires all miscarried pregnancies later than 22 weeks to be reported, which is the law right now.

This is an ongoing trend with the Republicans and their social issues–make repeated laws that accomplish the same thing to… to what end?  A girl wonders.

And then your eye might drift to the second page of the bill and read:

(And I just have to warn you that we are about to enter a realm of such cruel jackassery that I almost cannot believe Campfield can walk around and look women in the eye.)

If the mother was married at the time of conception, birth or fetal death, or anytime between conception, birth or fetal death, to the natural father of the child, the name of the child shall be entered on the certificate as that of the natural father, except that where the mother though married has retained the mother’s maiden surname, then on sworn application of both parents, the child’s surname to be entered on the birth certificate may be the maiden surname of the child’s mother, or both surnames as the parents mutually agree.


If the mother was not married at the time of conception, birth or fetal death, or between conception and birth or fetal death, the name of the father shall not be entered on the certificate of birth, and the surname of the child shall be that of the legal surname of the mother. All information pertaining to the father shall be omitted.

Let this sink in for just a second.  Remember, we’re talking about people who miscarry pregnancies that are over 22 weeks along, meaning that the fetus is either viable or just about.  If you’re the father, you’ve been able to place your hands on the woman’s stomach and feel that child move.  And Campfield is saying that, if that baby dies in utero, if you’re not married to the mom, you’re not legally that baby’s father.  In the eyes of the state, you didn’t lose anything.

Imagine this.  Let’s say you have a woman you’re deeply in love with and you find out you’re getting shipped to Iraq.  You ask her to marry you upon your return.  While you’re overseas, she calls to tell you that the last night you spent together resulted in her being pregnant.  Now you’re even more excited about getting home and marrying that girl.

If she miscarries, Campfield says, “Fuck you.  You’re the dad of nothing.”

These are the Family Values Campfield’s trying to advance.  If you’re not going to play by his rules, he wants the right to turn your personal family tragedies into a chance for him to teach you a lesson about the importance of being married.

As far as he’s concerned, a family isn’t something you decide to be; it’s something the state gets to decide to let you be.  And, if you aren’t married to the woman you love before you start fucking her, you’re not a family and any kids you have with her aren’t yours.  If she miscarries, Campfield doesn’t even think you’ve lost anything and he wants the law to reflect that.

11 thoughts on “Campfield’s Anti-Fatherhood Campaign

  1. Either that or it’s protecting the unmarried man’s “right to privacy.” Nobody has to know he knocked someone up. Where’s the mandatory DNA testing there?

  2. Sure. Because the state is obviously the ultimate authority on who’s the dad of what. Campfield isn’t saying ‘you’re the dad of nothing’ so much as he’s saying ‘we don’t care if you’re the dad’.

    It’s probably actually something for his ‘father’s rights’ supporters who don’t want to have any chance of being held responsible for medical bills or something.

  3. So tell me again . . . by what authority does young Master Campfield make this sort of pronouncement in the first place? Is he a doctor? Is he married? Does he have a child? Has he ever been pregnant, lost a baby, or had a miscarriage? How is it that men believe they are so uniquely qualified to make these decisions about women’s lives, bodies, and personal tragedies, while being oh, so quick to include clever legal loopholes for themselves?

  4. It’s probably actually something for his ‘father’s rights’ supporters who don’t want to have any chance of being held responsible for medical bills or something.

    While I do feel empathy for these fellows who’ve been held responsible for kids who turn out not to be theirs, may I humbly offer a nonlegislative and less-expensive suggestion? Or at least a legislative amendment that will help ensure some gender equity?

    Will you gentlemen of the heterosexual persuasion buy some damn condoms and use them? Hmmm? That will usually* prevent you from having to worry if the sorry lying diseased deceitful ho** whom you are currently knowing in the Biblical sense without benefit of marriage*** has taken her pill or put in her diaphragm or has just screwed 10 other guys before you removed your pants in her immediate vicinity.

    And if you didn’t suit up, gentlemen, then hey, we can amend the law to say, “Well, you didn’t take precautions either, so shut your mouth and open your wallet ’til the tests come back, hot rod.”


    * I say “usually” because I know the breakage percentages. Beat the odds, gentlemen, and buy the good ones.

    ** That is what you mean by “mother,” isn’t it, Rep?

    ** I say “without benefit of marriage” because Campfield’s so het up about that. Let the ladies who are gettin’ it on the side encourage their back-door men to suit up, too.

  5. Well, this is how Campfield stays in office. He stands on bull shit social issues and champions the yahoos of rural Knox county who are scared of sushi bars and independent women.

  6. I am almost tempted to write a vigorous defense of this bill, because all it really does is legally codify the very same matrilineal system that feminists have advocated for years. It’s not anti-father as much as it is pro-marriage-according-to-the-terms-of-feminism. There is no bastardy if there is no father.

  7. Oh complete and utter bullshit. It’s the old taking your toys and going home. Because you can’t legally boss a woman around and force her to carry a pregnancy to term, fuck it, you’re not going to give a shit about the pregnancy at all.

    It is possible, you know, to do both things–respect that, in the end, it is a woman’s right to do with her body what she feels is best and care about the woman and child involved.

  8. We just talked about the old Cult of Domesticity in my classes this week. I reminded the ladies that they must always protect their right to control their own fertility and access to divorce. Those were the two pillars of controlling women for 12,000 years of human history leading up to the feminist movement of the 1960s.

    On of my favorite female students, a brilliant and snarky young woman who might be a future Aunt B, any intelligent woman already knew that.

    The best thing was the boy who then spoke up and said that women needed to submit to their husbands and it would heal our land. The ladies nearly crucified the poor lad. I enjoyed watching for a few minutes before I stepped in and rescued his ass.

  9. Okay, I’m out as my typos are legion during this Campfield roasting.

    Oh, but he is so much fun to toast. Has anyone heard anymore about his troubles as a slum lord?

  10. Somebody send that joker a copy of Bastard Out of Carolina. Or better yet, send Dorothy Allison to his door and let her whup him.

Comments are closed.