After reading this news, I have never felt more Southernly justified to shout “damn Yankees.”
As of yesterday, House Bill 4750 in Massachusetts was on its way to the governor’s desk for signature into law, having recently cleared the state Senate.
This measure would substitute “person who gave birth” and “other parent” for the terms “mother” and “father” on new birth certificates.
Indeed, in a true sense. I’m also cringing and laughing.
The irony and sheer stupidity of it all is that it seems the Massachusetts Women’s Caucus actually approved of this.
No joke, The bill’s sponsor, State Representative Hannah Kane (R), said, “We realize that there are various pathways to parenting, and our laws need to reflect the variety of families,” according to ABC4.
Even if someone else adopts the child or neither of them rears it, does the child still need a mother and a father?
It seems that the law primarily focuses on the establishment of legal parenthood and the right of adoptees to know their real parents.
The relevant section of the Massachusetts law code states:
“A person presumed to be the father or alleging himself to be the father may not file a complaint to establish paternity under this chapter unless he is or was the mother’s husband at the time of the child’s birth or conception, if the mother was or is married, and the kid’s birth occurs during the marriage or within 300 hundred days of its termination.”
Thus, “mother” would also become “person who gave birth” under this measure.
I understand that legalese is complicated and intended to be absolutely clear, but is it really required in this case? Regardless of whether the “person who gave birth” perceives herself as a woman, or whether the child perceives her as their mother, she remains a mother.
The same applies to changing “father” to “other parent.” Even by legalese standards, this change is foolish, as it exacerbates the confusion rather than enhancing the clarity of the language’s meaning. They could have used “impregnator” to maintain the strange, degrading tone. Though it is too much to ask from people who think this way, it does make sense.
It’s like the lawyer’s take on the joke about how people pat expectant mothers on the belly and say “congratulations,” but they don’t give the dad the same gesture and say “good work.”
Why then do this action? “This measure provides equality for LGBTQ families to prove parentage and makes major advances toward helping children born via assisted reproductive technology,” Kane said in his explanation.
Do we intend to achieve this by renaming the essential intermediaries as the “person who gave birth” and the “other parent”?
Illinois approved a similar bill back in May, renaming criminals—that is, offenders—as “justice-impacted persons,” thereby transforming clear English into cumbersome, difficult mouthfuls.
Shakespeare famously remarked, “Brevity is the spirit of wit,” and there’s a reason for it.
Author: Blake Ambrose
