Maryland rapists have child rights after all-male panel fails to protect victims with bill

Originally published at:


Yet another example of how it really isn’t about protecting the children at all.


I keep checking above headlines for The Onion masthead, but this insanity is real.


Valar Morghulis.


I can’t like this, but I thank you for reporting this. I hope Del. Kathleen Dumais is able to muster up a 10th(!) attempt on a wave of outrage, and I hope I live to see ~80% less men in government.


When will women realize that a baby which is the result from a rape is a “gift from God”

Ask any elderly republican male lawmaker and he will confirm this statement.


Right. For a brief moment i had a difficult time trying to understand what/who was behind the non decision, then realized it is about fucking abortion again. :frowning:


Next up: Maryland legislators will prevent stabbing victims from having their wounds sutured, because the stabber has a right to the wounds they made.


So this is all just part of a slippery slope argument, then? If rapists’ parental rights can be terminated, then something-something abortion?

It’s the gun rights equivalent of saying everyone should be able to own a personal surface-to-air missile, I guess.


Well, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything but the panel of 5 was hand picked by two registered democrats.

I’m obviously not surprised surprised; but it seems odd that you’d even need a specific carve-out declaring you an unsuitable candidate for shared custody if you’ve been convicted of a violent felony against your partner; sexual or otherwise(and even if the violent felony was against someone else entirely; shouldn’t that be a pretty strong factor against any consideration of letting you interact with children; unless very compellingly distant/reformed/etc?)

It’s also a bit depressing, given that there’s a very strong argument against allowing rapists custody under even uber-retro ‘property’ theories of women. It’s routine to force criminals to disgorge the profits of their crimes; and there are a variety of attempts at keeping them from profiting from associated stuff(true crime books, movie rights, etc.). As a rapist surely disgorgement would include loss of paternal righs?


It never is and never will be when old, white, “Christian” men get involved.


It just proves that men, regardless of their party affiliations, should not be making this decision.

(I shouldn’t have to add that I don’t mean to imply that no man can make a rational decision on this issue, but I probably do have to add that.)


Yes. This is the place in the Venn diagram of misogyny where Xtianists and MRAs overlap.


I completely agree, but the tone of people here (@gracchus, @vonbobo) seems to be that this must be rooted in conservative right-wing ideology, when actually, it just seems like more mundane de-prioritization of women’s issues because women aren’t involved. Still misogynistic, just not right-wing fuckery.



Looks like the wolves are in charge of the hen house.

1 Like

Patriarchal BS like this continues to thrive in such mundane ways in this country because it is ultimately rooted in conservative right-wing ideology. Allowing this kind of de-prioritsation of women’s issues to stand isn’t an outcome of liberal left-wing ideology, even if it was Dems who appointed this all-male panel.


Why not? Is it really so difficult to believe a dem could be anti abortion?

1 Like

Not super difficult, but not generally being the party which is into that sort of thing, I might want to read what they said to that effect before jumping to that conclusion.


I wonder whether I’m just dumb (or maybe it’s a case of slightly US-localized title making that i don’t get because I’m not a native English speaker)?

I honestly couldn’t figure the title out before reading the article itself. I would expect something like “… rapists keep parental rights…” to say what it is about