General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Raped, pregnant and ordeal not over - 31 states give parental rights to rapists
Raped, pregnant and ordeal not over
By Shauna Prewitt, Special to CNN
Chicago, Illinois (CNN) -- When I was in law school, my criminal law professor introduced us to the crime of rape by reading us a quote from Lord Chief Justice Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century English jurist: "In a rape case it is the victim, not the defendant, who is on trial."
It was not merely a history lesson. I had lived it.
While a student in my final year of college, at age 21, I was raped. I have dissected that moment -- the horrifying moment that I became a "victim" -- from every possible angle. I have poked and prodded, examined and re-examined. Regrettably, I have even suspected myself in a desperate, ultimately futile attempt to understand how I became a victim.
But blaming myself was neither my idea nor my first inclination. I thought such 17th-century notions were long dead. I was wrong. People who did not even know me were quick to comment or speculate on my rape. What were you wearing? Did you scream loudly? Did this occur in public?
As my history lesson said, I found myself on trial, facing the most fierce judge and jury: ignorance.
more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/prewitt-rapist-visitation-rights/index.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Lone_Star_Dem
(28,158 posts)Her closing statement should be on every ones lips and billboards everywhere.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Parental rights? VISITATION rights? This is beyond insane. 
Lone_Star_Dem
(28,158 posts)It's not that they're likely to get it that's the issue. It's the torture and hell the rapist gets to continue to put the victim through that's so insane here.
CabCurious
(954 posts)
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)
tonybgood
(218 posts)Look at the vast majority of lawmakers in this country; they are MEN!!! That's all the justification needed. I've said it before; WRONG IS WRONG!!! Those 31 states should be identified and this travesty should be ended. I'll put a famous Mitt Romney bet of $10,000 it doesn't happen!!!
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)I know they're white males. But they would give nominal rationalizations. What are they?
I always like to know what their craven lizard-brains think works on voters who don't think or who go along.
However, in this case, my research seems to indicate that the visitation rights for rapists are a sin of omission: laws exist to give fathers and alleged fathers visitation rights in (almost?) all states but in only 16 states are there additional laws to deny rapists varying degrees of visitation and custody rights.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)about "white males" because you've made that specific reference twice now (the second one is down thread). If you're saying that only "white males" make anti-women laws I offer you up the Taliban as a counter. History is replete with others. The issue is MEN who want to control WOMEN, regardless of race and I'm old enough to have seen that in EVERY race. If I've misunderstood you, please feel free to clarify.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)You are right, most men want to control women. It cuts across race (whatever that is), genetic groupings, and ethnic backgrounds.
But in the USA, the men in elected office, i.e. power, are mostly white. And most of the elected officers are male and hence most are white male. Also, in the USA, most religious 'leaders' are white male, though this is becoming less so day by day.
The more enlightened the men, the less controlling they are. The more fundamentalist, ignorant, uneducated, traditionalist, and reflexively conservative, the more controlling they are.
More to the point of this thread, in the case of the state laws, it is becoming clearer that the problem lies in states not making clear exception against rapists in their laws that control visitation and custody. So it is a sin of omission, not comission. It is less a case of overt control on this specific issue, and more a case of being asleep on the job.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)In the U.S., it is white males though I'm not sure it would change if other ethnicities were in charge. It seems to be in their DNA.
Did I Just Type This
(77 posts)...it was women voting for the men. Why more women don't run on women's rights platforms is beyond me. Seems as though the women running should have a lock on 50% of the vote.
I just can not fathom how these people can run for office and spew this mindless nonsense about who has the final say on women's bodies. I am always looking at their daughters and wives standing beside them smiling and waving as they deliver their speeches/lies. I feel as though this is truly the twilight zone. Keep expecting to wake up and have Rod Serling give me a wedgie.
RC
(25,592 posts)to be as ruthless as the men they are running against. And if they are that kind of women, it mostly defeats the purpose of a women running in the first place. It really does.
There are other ways, better ways, more effective ways to get started on women having equal rights. More women just need to speak up. The wives and daughters and mothers of the misogynist Husband, father, son, can start by refusing to go along with his bullshit. By refusing to be with him on his public appearances.
They are in a better position to shame him for his anti-women stances in private. They can speak out on their own in public.
But they won't. You know why? Because those women were raised to be supportive of their men, no matter how against their self interest it is to do so. Then there is the prestige of being married to a 'powerful', influential man. They don't want to rock the boat there. They like being looked up, even if it is in the shadow of their husband. "The man in charge of and in control of his family."
They also know he could very well leave them destitute and besmirch in a divorce. The blame the victim again.
handmade34
(24,033 posts)
Rhiannon12866
(257,478 posts)
Xithras
(16,191 posts)All 50 states have laws granting legal rights to a childs biological father. 31 of those states use laws that didn't contain any specific exceptions, and instead rely on the courts to determine whether access should be denied. Rather than adding in exception after exception, these state simply have laws that say "Biological fathers have these rights until the court says otherwise".
This is obviously problematic in the case of rape, where the rape victim must file to have those rights terminated. I only personally know of one case where this happened, and the family court judge immediately terminated all of the rapists parental rights once the victim submitted the documentation showing that the biological father had been convicted of raping her. Even though the courts were cooperative, she probably shouldn't have had to go through that. The law should automatically terminate those rights once the rapist is convicted.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)the kind of legislators that would approve of this would probably be the sort who wanted abortions to be stopped by any means necessary and they would tell themselves that the rapists, out of a desire to inflict even more misery on their victims, would deny consent for an abortion. They'd probably even see this as the rapists "redeeming themselves before God".
It's "the end justifies ANY means" argument at its ugliest, in other words.
Starry Messenger
(32,382 posts)
RockaFowler
(7,429 posts)So she was a victim more than once. So sad
rox63
(9,464 posts)
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)After all, rape is a form of marriage, according to those long-deceased desert raiders.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)
mnhtnbb
(33,455 posts)
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)Ballot measures anywhere? That shit needs to stop!
Hamlette
(15,556 posts)"a woman may feel forced to bargain away her legal rights to a criminal trial in exchange for the rapist dropping the bid to have access to her child."
our society hates women...
redqueen
(115,186 posts)Yep.
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)Agree 100%
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)when you do not see a person.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)you have an 80% chance or so of belonging to one of the three Abrahamic religions. All three are mysoginistic. I will now await the flaming "no true christian" replies. All I can say to those is "read your holy book".
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)solely by a bunch of old white males..
who supposedly went out of their way to take out any overly positive messages about women..
and turned mary mag into a prostitute to discredit her existence and relationship with jesus..
SunSeeker
(58,354 posts)How can this be happening in this country?
burnsei sensei
(1,820 posts)Then, I'd like their governors and legislators, on all levels, to be humiliated publicly, endlessly.
I think rapists have rights.
1. the right to have evidence collected against them.
2. the right to a trial.
3. the right to serve their punishment in general prison populations. And,
4. the right to be humiliated, most especially by women, for the remainder of their lives.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)article (cited at the beginning of the HuffPo editorial). It was written in 2009.
http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/98-3/Prewitt.PDF
There are 16 states that allow for some form of legal protection/redress for women who become pregnant from rape and choose to keep the child:
California; Connecticut; Idaho; Louisiana; Maine; Michigan; Missouri; Montana; Nevada; New Jersey; North Carolina; Okalahoma; South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas; Wisconsin
From the Internet, it appears that South Carolina recently changed their laws - and there must be two more states, since she comments in the HuffPo article that there are "31 states" that allow parental rights to rapists.
Prewitt goes on (in footnote 197) to comment that although the other (at the time, 34) states do not have specific statutes, there are laws in place that can terminate parental rights based on the violent act of the perpetrator - though she considers these more of a Russian Roulette for a rape victim and her child.
She also discusses, to some degree - but not as much as other things I found on the 'net - the problem with many of the statutes; that they only apply to convicted rapists, and often the conviction has to be first (some states include second) degree rape, not a lesser crime.
The article is worth reading, although it seems to be largely about justifying a woman's decision to carry a pregnancy/keep a child that results from rape, rather than the problem of rapists' rights. I suspect that Prewitt is personally opposed to abortion - she goes to great lengths to castigate the arguments that have been used to provide the rape exception in state and federal law.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)If not I'm going to go heave. The state already has at one major embarrassment, it passed an anti-gay law a few years back which hasn't been repealed (and is not on the ballot this year so it would be 2014 at least before it would be up for a vote).
nolabear
(43,850 posts)Because women can swing this election. And many women have no idea. The GOP supports the complete subjugation of women to men and the unborn. Can you IMAGINE your rapist using your child as a pawn? Can you imagine your rapist having a full say in how your child is raised? Can you imagine your rapist having access to your CHILD???
redqueen
(115,186 posts)I feel sick.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
queenjane
(296 posts)Historically, in many (most) societies, that's basically what women were. No rights, no voice, no control. They were to marry and reproduce and rear the young and obey.
In this worldview, espoused by the Fundie Teakkklanner mob, of course the father would have rights over the child, regardless of the means of conception.
This is a horror movie without end, it seems.
burnsei sensei
(1,820 posts)Historically, in many (most) societies, that's basically what women were. No rights, no voice, no control. They were to marry and reproduce and rear the young and obey.
I think not.
Presently, in many societies, women have no rights, voice or control over their lives or bodies.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)it happens in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Our own lawmakers really need to look in a mirror once in a while, huh? 
I'm glad to see this on a mainstream site like CNN so that non-activist types can see it.
Smilo
(2,049 posts)realize how closely this country is beginning to resemble them.
Of course there is the slight problem that it is the faux-Christians here that are doing this.
Amazing that in the 17th Century - 400 years ago - that an English Jurist spoke the truth and we have learned nothing.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)I wonder is there any pattern to the lawmakers (party, religion, education, etc) other than white male? Is there any comprehensive site or page that has researched the whole issue of these laws?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Without an explicit exemption for rapists, the rapist can seek custody, visitation, child support and anything else a father can do.
These 31 states lack that exemption. They don't have laws explicitly granting rights to rapists.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)Giving Birth to a “Rapist’s Child”: A Discussion
and Analysis of the Limited Legal Protections
Afforded to Women Who Become Mothers
Through Rape
SHAUNA R. PREWITT*
THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 98:827 2010]
Abstract: Approximately 25,000 women become pregnant through rape each year. In
response, many states have passed special laws, devised streamlined proce-
dures, or both, to aid pregnant women who seek abortions or wish to place
their rape-conceived children for adoption. However, few states have passed
laws to aid the large numbers of raped women who choose to raise their
rape-conceived children. Without such laws, in most states, a man who
fathers through rape has the same custody and visitation privileges to that
child as does any other father of a child. Moreover, as a result of this legal
void, raped women and their children are left to face substantial and poten-
tially terrible consequences. This Note argues that the absence of these laws
stems from the societal images and other rhetoric concerning the pregnant
raped woman that depict raped women as hating their unborn children and
viewing their rape pregnancies as continuing their rape experience. These
societal constructions have created a biased “prototype” of the pregnant
raped woman and of the prototypical rape pregnancy experience by which all
pregnant raped women are judged. Women who raise their rape-conceived
children depart from the prototype and are, as a result, viewed with suspicion.
Legal protections, such as alternate custody rights, are then denied to them
because, being viewed as “imposter” rape victims, it is thought that there is
nothing special about these women or their conceptions requiring any change
in the manner in which custody and visitation determinations are made.
* Georgetown Law, J.D. 2009; University of Chicago, A.B. 2004. © 2010, Shauna R. Prewitt.
burnsei sensei
(1,820 posts)Legal protections, such as alternate custody rights, are then denied to them
because, being viewed as “imposter” rape victims, it is thought that there is
nothing special about these women or their conceptions requiring any change
in the manner in which custody and visitation determinations are made.
We're living in Akin's world.
The "biased prototype" should be called what it is-- ERROR.
It is errancy, and gives rise only to the nurturance of lies and suffering.
Did I Just Type This
(77 posts)What is to stop the victim from taking up arms against the assailant, after all it would be self defense, temporary insanity or something. You can lose parental rights to your children if you smoke cigarettes, but if you don't smoke you can see a child born through the commission of an illegal act?
apples and oranges
(1,451 posts)Here is the rapist with the child: 
Under a strict interpretation of the law, these boys, by virtue of their age, were raped. But family courts have seen these incidents for what they were: consensual sexual encounters. And as a result, they have ordered the boys to pay child support.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/article1183449.ece
burnsei sensei
(1,820 posts)The woman is a sex offender-- her target group is boys.
So what is a boy, even if he is her son, doing in her custody?
She is a sex offender.
There must be consequences, and they must favor retribution by shielding the child from her.
Where was the adoption order when it was so necessary?
fasttense
(17,301 posts)is so low that I could NOT find a statistics for it. See if you can.
We remember these female on male rape cases because of TV and detective shows but the number of cases is so low, it's very difficult to get a number on it. So, I don't think it's a huge problem in this society.
TahitiNut
(71,611 posts)Female on male rape is even MORE so.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)However, how can someone convicted of a sex crime get visitation?
IrishAle
(62 posts)They Are Not A Fetus
They Are Not Corporations
They Are Women.. which means in the eyes of the Right, they are not Legitimate people. So they have no rights.
Republican Jebus Loves you though!
Did I Just Type This
(77 posts)George Carlin said it best, Republicans will stand by unborn fetuses' rights through any means necessary. Once the baby is born it is "screw you", no government health insurance, no food stamps, no decent education access...
Ilsa
(64,480 posts)Is beyond me.
The decision to carry to term is the woman's. Period. But situations like this certainly make it more logical to have an early abortion.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts) KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
handmade34
(24,033 posts)http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/04/10/parental-rights-for-rapists
"...Once Maria has the child, the rapist may gain parental rights depending on his relation to Maria. If the rapist is a stranger to Maria and risks implicating himself criminally, he is probably unlikely to pursue parental rights in the child. But most rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows. If the rapist is Maria's abusive husband, his parental rights are presumed upon the birth of the child. If he is an acquaintance or a former boyfriend, he may learn of the child and file a paternity action to establish his legal parenthood. Or, if Maria receives public assistance benefits, the state will pursue his paternity, unless she is lucky enough both to live in a state that exempts victims of violence from participating in such paternity cases, and she is actually informed of her right to exercise that option. Under most state's laws, the rapist's biological connection to the child, regardless of its provenance - even, in many states, in the case of incest - is sufficient to gain parental rights..."
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
& Rec !!!
gollygee
(22,336 posts)
proud patriot
(102,545 posts)this makes me cry .. maybe I'm just tired .... but this got to me
Nikia
(11,411 posts)Some women may be willing to have and raise their baby conceived by rape, but the thought that doing so might tie her to the rapist is probably more than most women would be willing to take.
A rape victim shouldn't have to worry about the rapist asserting his parental rights.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)and for their support and guidance in life
the way the bible tells us
not for a selfish rape victim
next decade> forced marriage for rape victim to rapist after bearing child
MissNostalgia
(159 posts)If only people voted in every election, and paid attention these Taliban Republicans wouldn't of gotten this advantage.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
hlthe2b
(114,335 posts)This country is so backwards in so many ways with respect to women. It shames me.
regnaD kciN
(27,678 posts)...holding up her experience as evidence for why there should be no exception for rape; after all, she got pregnant, chose to give birth, and wound up loving the child, so all other women in her position should simply do the same! 
kelly1mm
(5,756 posts)The only case I can find of a convicted rapist (statutory) getting custody was a woman who raped a minor boy. She even got child support from him. The link to the story is above.
Do you want statutory rapists lose all parental rights? If the mom is 19 and the dad is 16 then mom should lose the child as soon as she gives birth?
I cannot support (although I DO sympathize and understand the problems inherent in reporting and prosecuting rape cases, especially non-stranger rapes) terminating the parental rights of a parent based on the word of one of the parents that the child was conceived subsequent to rape. Women DO sometimes lie about rape. I am sure everyone remembers the Duke lacrosse team rape case.
I can give you another. I represented a dad in a custody case. Here is his story:
Parents were together for 1.5 years. In the middle of the relationship, she got pregnant. Dad went to the prenatal appointments (important later as this was in the medical records) lived with the mom, paid bills (important again), etc. 2 weeks before the birth, they break up. Dad show up to the hospital, mom says he is not the father so he could not see the baby OR sign the birth certificate. Dad sues for custody.
Mom responds by claiming 1) she barely knew the guy, 2) he raped her at a party when he got her drunk.
Until the trial (5 months after the birth) dad was not allowed to see the child per mom's instructions.
At trial, the first witness I called was her. She repeated her story. Great for us! Then the medical records showing dad at the prenatal appointments, then the bank records showing utility payments by my client when the lived together. Then the Facebook postings with all the pictures of them together and the baby updates. Then I call her parents (who heard thee prior testimony as I did not invoke the rule on witnesses) and they told the truth - that she was mad at him for the breakup and was punishing him with the child.
Dad now (last 2+ years) has full custody (legal and physical) and mom has supervised visitation.
malthaussen
(18,600 posts)We're "enlightened" like that.
-- Mal
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 10:51 PM - Edit history (1)
I'm thinking at least half the guys posting there(and yes, they WOULD be guys)are paroled rapists. Maybe two-thirds. The comments range between extreme misogyny and outright psychosis.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)There are no words.
Yet women continue to vote for these....
these...
(fuck, I can't find a word bad enough).
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)
Fawks121
(7 posts)We have always been a patriarchal nation. Women have been and continue to be second class citizens. I think many, including so called left leaning and liberal thinking men, still hold the belief that women have a certain "place" to uphold in society. Recent studies have been done that still indicate many men think it is completely acceptable to coerce a women into sex. These politicians are still trying to ensure that men have the legal right to "sow the seed" as it were. Many people still belief in this day and age that a man who doesn't receive regular sexual gratification will go "insane" or act out...which is sadly true in many circumstances, but doesn't mean this is a genetic problem. This is taught behavior. Secondly, bernardo de la paz said it great, these are primarily white men...in the U.S. perpetrating this patriarchal violence, and we need to get real about the racial aspect of this. Yes, many men of color (too many) act in sick, overly aggressive and oppressive male violence, but as one of my favorite radical feminist writers reminds us, our nation was founded on white supremacy and patriarchy, because of this, we do not have a way to explore the ways that gender roles and relationships developed in cultures and societies that were not dictated by white supremacy. She reminds us that most societies had patriarchy, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were violent. Western patriarchy is particularly violent.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)on that website...
yikes.
