Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Father Terrence who wrote (11804)	7/16/2001 8:02:08 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Try this. Tell a liberal friend you oppose the welfare state because it will eventually lead to the state mandating who can and cannot procreate. Savor the look of condescension, and contempt. Laugh when he asks you about black helicopters and tin foil hats. Then lay this on him: NYTimes By TAMAR LEWIN I n an unusual action against a "deadbeat dad," the Wisconsin Supreme Court has upheld a probation order that bars a man convicted offailure to pay child support from having more children unless he shows that he can support all his offspring. The 34-year-old man, David Oakley, who has nine children by four women and owes $25,000 in support, faces eight years in prison if he violates the condition. The case split the court, 4 to 3, along gender lines. All four male justices joined in the ruling, issued on Tuesday, finding the condition a reasonable mechanism to deal with a father who has consistently and intentionally failed to pay the child support he owes. The three female justices opposed it as an unconstitutional intrusion on a basic right to procreate. Mr. Oakley's lawyer, Timothy T. Kay, said yesterday that he was still considering whether to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. In a statement, Mr. Kay said the case had broad implications for reproductive rights, "specifically that a class of individuals will be limited to the number of children based upon financial resources." . . . Many more such cases may follow Mr. Oakley's, Justice Bradley said. "The majority has essentially authorized a judicially imposed `credit check' on the right to bear and beget children," she said. "Thus begins our descent down the proverbial slippery slope. While the majority describes this case as `anomalous' and comprised of `atypical facts,' the cases in which such a principle might be applied are not uncommon. The majority's own statistical data regarding nonpayment of support belies its contention that this case is truly exceptional." nytimes.com