Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Keeping Private Affairs Private

Tim Cavanaugh | 4.24.2003 7:39 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Florida's so-called scarlet letter law, requiring women to publish sexual histories before giving up their babies for adoption, was struck down in the Fourth District Court of Appeal yesterday.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Journalist Celebrates Freedom...

Tim Cavanaugh
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (8)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. PoliBlogger   22 years ago

    Seems like the the better alternative would have been to legally severe all paternity claims by convicted rapists (the reason cited for the law’s existence in the CNN story). Indeed, there seems to be any number of better ways to deal with this problem than publishing the sexual history of the mother in the paper. Yeesh.

  2. Sir Real   22 years ago

    …must…resist…urge…to bash…Florida…

  3. Harry Tuttle   22 years ago

    This law sounds stupid. It would be much more useful to require the women to publish their sexual histories before getting pregnant. Maybe they could tack a list on their forehead. It would give potential couples something to talk about on their first date.

  4. TheCaptain   22 years ago

    Sir Real

    In cadence,
    Take a deep breath… Release…
    Count to ten…

    Florida… supplanting Texas as the __________…

    Feel free to fill in the blank!

  5. Jim   22 years ago

    Sounds like the alternate approach, with the registry for potential fathers, might work while still protecting women’s privacy (after all, if the woman in question and the man applying slept together, then they already know this. Of course it could be embarrasing for the women if ten guys sign up thinking they fathered the same child. Maybe identities of potential fathers (or even their existence) should be kept secret since really only one person’s DNA will match up with the child. Only that person would be told, “yes this is your kid” and all others would just be told “no, it’s not your child”.

    I had never heard of this before; if I didn’t follow the link to find out the reasoning I guess I would have assumed it was some crap dreamed up by morally conservative older voters in Florida to punish loose women. Surprising no one thought of this before they passed it in the first place.

  6. geophile   22 years ago

    I think Cathy Young did a story on this a while back. Is she still with REASON or what? She never posts to Hit & Run.

  7. geophile   22 years ago

    I agree that some measures may be necessary to ensure the rights of the rare father in such circumstances that wants to play a part in his child’s life. This law purports to do that, but simply isn’t pragmatic, to say the least. How many Man-sluts peruse their local Daily Shopper, catching up on local news and clipping coupons, etc? If they sincerely want their children, they all know where to look, and it isn’t the last page of the local fishwrap.

  8. Jack   22 years ago

    Too bad this law didn’t get overthrown in time to save Clinton.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

DOJ Brings Kilmar Abrego Garcia Back to the U.S. After Insisting It Couldn't

Joe Lancaster | 6.9.2025 4:45 PM

Denver Case Highlights the Potentially Deadly Hazards of Police Raids Based on Secondhand Information

Jacob Sullum | 6.9.2025 4:20 PM

Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline

Sophia Mandt | 6.9.2025 12:48 PM

FTC Pivots From Competition to Children

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 6.9.2025 11:00 AM

This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market

Jack Nicastro | 6.9.2025 10:44 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!