Discussion: H.R. 871, Jane's Law (6 comments ↓)
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
No discussion on this article yet.
Cost per :
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Shawn
June 1, 2007, 5:24pm (report abuse)I dislike any law with a persons name on it. It is just emotions talking.
Anonymous
June 18, 2007, 3:51pm (report abuse)Why don't you read the law Shawn before commenting. It corrects a loophole in criminal/divorce law that was left open through the bad-dad law. There's no debate. It has to happen.
shawn
July 2, 2007, 11:23pm (report abuse)It’s just as I thought before the bill was posted and just like your love of the bad dad law. It is an attempt to bring civil matters to the criminal courts based on emotions. Man bashing at its worst. A civil court determines you owe something to a woman where they have a lower standard of proof. Then instead of keeping it in the civil courts it is automatically moved to a criminal court. It is a totally sexist use of the criminal courts and like their names indicate totally sexist. Let the civil courts sort it out with the tools they already have.
Vicky
July 18, 2007, 10:44am (report abuse)The only thing sexist about the law is when people call it so. Why is the spouse always the man? That is the only sexist notion. The name is unimportant. The name of the law is based on a specific act of injustice but applies to all people, not just men. If a woman is the wealthy spouse and she leaves the country she is liable. Your belief of the sexism in this is either ignorance or an attempt to keep an open door to screw over an X open.
Shawn
July 18, 2007, 7:42pm (report abuse)9/10 divorces end with the kids allocated to the mother despite fathers filing for paternity. Money and property follow the same trend with women making out with most of the assets and generating less of the household income. Courts nearly always side with the woman. This is a way to criminalize civil matter in an area of law that has a history of sexuality based bias.
Anonymous
July 20, 2007, 6:37pm (report abuse)Bravo Vicky. You're right on!