Unfettered Letters

California octuplets

Columnist Ellen Goodman opined that the birth of the Suleman octuplets “is more than an individual decision” (2/8, Opinion, “Case of octuplets shows lack of sense and limits”). Goodman implies that because public dollars may be needed to care for these children, the government should be entitled to regulate the implantation of embryos.

Goodman has previously established her belief that government should not interfere with women’s privacy “rights” to abortion. What twisted logic. If a woman’s womb is a private matter, then her decision to deliver a “litter” is private. On the other hand, if the concern is that tax dollars are going to be spent contrary to Americans’ wishes, then public money should not be used to pay for abortions.

If Goodman is truly concerned about how our tax dollars are being spent, she should be outraged at President Obama’s decision to lift the ban against using tax revenues to procure abortions around the globe. A Gallup poll reveals that only 35 percent of Americans approve of President Obama’s decision to lift that ban.

It is hypocrisy to play the “privacy” and “public money” cards when it suits only one side of a debate.

Kim Wetzel-Williams
Kansas City, Kan.

Nadya Suleman chose to have in vitro fertilization and now has eight more children. I wonder if her unidentified fertility doctor is married. If not, maybe he should consider marrying Nadya to help care for these innocent children.

If he is not available, maybe she should consider adoption. That decision would demonstrate responsibility, maturity and love, which seems to be a huge deficit in this sad scenario.

Susan Hidalgo
Lake Quivira

‘Presumed father’ issue

The paternity law in Kansas (and Missouri) is archaic and definitely needs to be changed. A married man is automatically presumed to be the father of a child born during a marriage. Not in this day and age of DNA testing.

The soldier in Kansas is being punished for his wife’s infidelity (1/22, Local, “Bill aims to fix ‘presumed father’ issue; Under current Kansas law, an ex-husband must pay support even if the children are not his”). How can it possibly be in the best interest of any child that women, with the state’s assistance, can perpetuate this type of malicious prosecution against innocent men?

If this were a criminal case, it would be dismissed based on the lack of evidence. How can it be in a child’s best interest to never know who his or her father really is, and not even look for him? Or does the truth not really matter? All children should be DNA tested at birth, thus eliminating the need for cases such as this.

This law is permitting the state, with the backing of the courts, to commit fraud. This is legal extortion.

Ann Quinn
Kansas City

Child-support laws

There is an additional flaw in the “Some will pay, despite DNA” come-hell–or-high-water approach to child support (12/31, Local, “Advocates push for law allowing men wrongly declared as fathers to prove the mistake”), and that is the custodial parent, the recipient of the money, has no legal responsibility to the non-custodial parent or the court to show “proper” use of the money.
Look at the effort the judicial system takes to get the money from the non-custodial parent, but there is no requirement or legal audit to show that the money is spent for the child’s benefit. The system needs to include an accountability of the money paid. This myopic approach to the child support needs to be fixed.
John Boyer
Leavenworth

Child support enforcement

After reading “New child support enforcement used; Kansas officials now check applicant names on hunting, fishing licenses for anyone who owes $5,000 or more” by David Klepper (10/29, Local), all I could do was shake my head and laugh. Most people paying child support are men, but does Kansas actually think they all hunt and fish?

What about all those deadbeats who don’t hunt or fish? When are they going to be tracked down and made to pay child support? This issue is so big, and nothing really seems to be done to make these deadbeats pay. Kansas needs to implement this program with driver’s licenses’ and tag renewal, not hunting and fishing licenses. Once they find these people, Kansas then needs to start garnishing wages and taking tax returns to get these deadbeats on track.

To many of those owed money, this current program will seem like a joke, not a solution.

Pier Miller
Lee’s Summit

Editor’s note: Kansas can impose driving restrictions for parents who owe more than $500 in back child support.

A sign of the times? Deadbeat parents do not care enough about their children to pay child support, but they will pay up in order to get a hunting license.

M. Dinkmeyer
Gladstone