The case of the adopted Cherokee girl…

June 25th, 2013

…the Supreme Court just decided in favor of the adoptive parents is an act of sexual discrimination.

Why?

Here’s the relevant passage:

The phrase “continued custody” thus refers to custody that a parent already has (or at least had at some point in the past). As a result, §1912(f) does not apply where the Indian parent never had custody of the Indian child.

If it had been the biological mother who was disputing the adoption she would have won because, of course, biological mothers alway start with custody.

Just another example of how the only real choice a man ever gets when it comes to children is whether to wear a condom or not.

Entry Filed under: Observations

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta