Biden’s HHS aims to redefine nuclear family in regulations.
A New Rule Seeks to Redefine Family and Erase Biological Terms
A new rule proposed by President Joe Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services is causing controversy as it seeks to redefine family and remove important biological terms from child support regulations. The rule aims to replace words like “mother,” “father,” and “paternity” with the gender-neutral term “parentage.”
Americans have until November 27th to provide their input on the rule, which is being proposed by the Office of Child Support Services (OCSS). The OCSS suggests replacing sex-specific pronouns like “his” or “her” with ”their” in federal child support regulations.
“This proposed change recognizes that numerous States have updated their laws and procedures to meet the legal, financial, and emotional needs of the families in their jurisdiction ensuring that all children in their caseloads can receive child support services and support from their parents, regardless of the structure of their family,” the rule draft states.
The OCSS acknowledges the current requirement for establishing paternity and genetic testing in contested cases, but argues that this should not limit the definition of a parent to a child’s biological mother and father.
The proponents of the rule believe that all states should have the freedom to establish parentage for all children, regardless of the gender of their parents or family structure. They cite the Respect for Marriage Act and the Supreme Court’s approval of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges as evidence that taxpayer-funded programs should recognize diverse family structures.
The OCSS also highlights that this proposal aligns with President Biden’s Executive orders, which aim to advance equity for all, including LGBTQI+ communities.
However, critics argue that this rule reflects a push to destroy the traditional definition of the nuclear family, similar to movements like Black Lives Matter. They fear that erasing biological terms and redefining family structures could undermine the benefits of traditional marriage and impact children’s well-being.
The proposed rule also has implications for Americans who use assisted reproductive technology to have children, as it would provide legal flexibility for recognizing non-traditional parentage.
A group of Republican senators, including Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, have expressed their opposition to the rule, condemning it as an attempt to impose radical gender ideology and erase the reality of biological sex in the law.
“We are disappointed that your administration is using CSE as a tool to advance radical gender ideology, rather than strengthening its ability to help families,” the Republicans wrote. “Americans understand that mothers and fathers are different, and that both parents play vital roles in raising their children. Federal regulations should uphold this fact rather than erasing the reality of biological sex in the law at the behest of left-wing activists.”
The senators urge the department to rescind the rule and focus on reforming child support regulations to ensure fathers’ financial responsibility throughout pregnancy.
About the Author
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University with a major in political science and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
What are the potential negative implications on a child’s sense of self and belonging if biological terms are erased and family is redefined?
Rgues that the proposed change will ensure that every child receives the necessary financial and emotional support from their parents, regardless of the composition of their family. They emphasize the importance of providing support to children and promoting their well-being, rather than focusing solely on biological relationships.
However, critics of the rule raise concerns about the potential consequences of erasing biological terms and redefining family. They argue that biological relationships play a crucial role in a child’s identity and development, and removing these terms could have negative implications for their sense of self and belonging.
Opponents also express reservations about the implications of the rule on legal matters such as inheritance, custody, and visitation rights. They argue that redefining the concept of family could complicate these legal processes and lead to uncertainty and disputes.
Additionally, some argue that the proposal undermines traditional family values and societal norms. They believe that maintaining a clear and consistent definition of family is essential for societal stability and the well-being of children.
Critics also highlight potential religious freedom implications of the rule. They assert that requiring religious individuals or organizations to endorse or support family structures that go against their beliefs could infringe upon their constitutional rights.
As the deadline for public input approaches, it is clear that the proposed rule has ignited a heated debate about the definition of family and the role of biological relationships. The discussion encompasses issues of identity, legal rights, societal norms, and religious freedom. The outcome of this debate will shape the future of child support regulations and have far-reaching implications for families across the United States.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...