I think you could argue against the Feds requiring a paternity test on privacy or state's rights, maybe some other grounds.
But what it should be anyway is a requirement to get child support.
It's functionally the same thing because if they're married the father can just have the test done, or if he has custody (lol), or if the divorced mother with custody refuses then it's not his.
I like that the best. Mandatory DNA seems to intrusive, but in a child support case it's just evidence to prove you are responsible for a debt. It's like a receipt or a contract. I don't know if that could be made federally either though, isn't child support a state issue?
I don't think the Feds could mandate a DNA test, but I bet they could sue states for denying a father's civil rights / due process by making him pay for a child that's not his. Basically make it so each state has to put it into their laws.
Hell it should be covered under 8th's no cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Here's the thing: child support money is taxable income. The government makes money off of it. They will be naturally averse to passing any legislation that actively hampers them, even if doing so should be a fundamental right for men. Especially because it would be legislation that goes against the edicts of feminism, which promotes unrestrained, unilateral female supremacy, fighting against any obligation, expectation or responsibility that might be expected of them.
Asking them to think about the potential consequences of having unprotected sex with dozens of men or asking them to write the actual father's name on the birth certificate is genocide, you see.
DNA tests for support cases are easy enough, at least here in Texas. The problem lies in situations where the guy has been acting in the father capacity for years and only later does it come to light that he’s not the bio dad. Courts will say too bad, it’s more important that the child have a father. That’s how mandatory DNA testing fixes this issue.
If they put a clause in that the father and he alone could waive his right to the test, I think that could sweep away the privacy/right's issue. Or even just "the man being put on the birth certificate" if father was too charged a word, so that way a woman can't just scribble a random guy's name in without proof.
Or, as you say, make it a requirement for any and all government intervention in the family.
I think you could argue against the Feds requiring a paternity test on privacy or state's rights, maybe some other grounds.
But what it should be anyway is a requirement to get child support.
It's functionally the same thing because if they're married the father can just have the test done, or if he has custody (lol), or if the divorced mother with custody refuses then it's not his.
I like that the best. Mandatory DNA seems to intrusive, but in a child support case it's just evidence to prove you are responsible for a debt. It's like a receipt or a contract. I don't know if that could be made federally either though, isn't child support a state issue?
I don't think the Feds could mandate a DNA test, but I bet they could sue states for denying a father's civil rights / due process by making him pay for a child that's not his. Basically make it so each state has to put it into their laws.
Hell it should be covered under 8th's no cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Here's the thing: child support money is taxable income. The government makes money off of it. They will be naturally averse to passing any legislation that actively hampers them, even if doing so should be a fundamental right for men. Especially because it would be legislation that goes against the edicts of feminism, which promotes unrestrained, unilateral female supremacy, fighting against any obligation, expectation or responsibility that might be expected of them.
Asking them to think about the potential consequences of having unprotected sex with dozens of men or asking them to write the actual father's name on the birth certificate is genocide, you see.
Wait... child support is taxable? Does that mean that the guy paying it gets to claim a tax deduction?
DNA tests for support cases are easy enough, at least here in Texas. The problem lies in situations where the guy has been acting in the father capacity for years and only later does it come to light that he’s not the bio dad. Courts will say too bad, it’s more important that the child have a father. That’s how mandatory DNA testing fixes this issue.
If they put a clause in that the father and he alone could waive his right to the test, I think that could sweep away the privacy/right's issue. Or even just "the man being put on the birth certificate" if father was too charged a word, so that way a woman can't just scribble a random guy's name in without proof.
Or, as you say, make it a requirement for any and all government intervention in the family.