Gloria Alled was arguing for it b/c of the BIC. She went as far as saying, paraphrasing, that a man i the uudience who was the victim of such should still be required to pay until the real dad stepped up. Reason? He was an MD and could afford it. I think there were some boo's.
She went on to say that "this is a small minority" of cs issues. Then, a DNA speicalist went on to say that, in fact, over 30% of paternity tests were negative...someone else is the father.
They then made a surprising argument against...if we can acquit persons on death row by DNA, should fathers not be? After all, do the families of murder not deserve continued justice? Does a wrongly accused fathert not deserve? And when you use the most vague of terms, BIC, it goes to the emotional argument. Yet they want to hold the non-dad responsible even though, say, mom withheld the information on cheating all these years...lor maybe the girlfriend withheld the information from the boyfriend.
Interesting argument but one thing pisses me off...they are addressing an issue that is important, but is small in comparison to the overall issue 1) BIC severely flawed, 2) standard orders do not work in most case, 3) fathers are discriminated the delegated to a secondary class person with virtually no parental rights, 4) the government has no business telling fit parents they are not worthy of equal standing.