Response To Petition For Court Order To Establish Paternity, Legal Decision Making: Fill & Download for Free

Really short answer: Yes - probably.In most USA states, if paternity has not been established, then the purported father has no legal say in where the child may reside or whether the child may be taken out of the country. The child’s given name has no impact on the issue. Neither does the provision or lack of child support.If the paternity of the child has been established and the custodial/maternal parent has been awarded “sole custody”, the father does not have the right to dictate where the child lives or travels. However, he can petition the court to amend the custody provisions to grant him those rights. This is especially true if the removal will interfere with visitation or otherwise negatively impact the father’s rights to his child.If the parents share joint custody, the father’s written permission is required to remove the child from the country, and often to relocate within the USA.“Established paternity” standards vary by state. In can be as simple as a name on the birth certificate, an acknowledgement of paternity. being married at the time of birth, a court order, or the gold standard - a DNA test.Examples:Parents are not married. Baby is born without the father in attendance. He refuses to acknowledge paternity. Mother sues him in family court, DNA tests establishes paternity. Court orders child support and establishes visitation rights. Mother granted “sole custody”. Father does not object. Father does not pay child support and never exercises visitation rights. Mother decides to travel and live abroad with the child. Father’s permission is not required.Same as above except the father petitions the court to change the custody provision to prevent the removal of the child based on the fact that it will interfere with his parental visitation rights. The judge decides whether the child gets to go or not. The past behavior of the parties has less to do with influencing that decision than one would expect, especially if the father is willing to assume custodial care for the child during the time the mother is abroad. It could go either way. If the father is not willing to assume custodial care of the child, it will lean towards granting the mother’s position - but expect visitation provisions to continue. A sympathetic judge may order visitation suspended, but probably the best one can hope for is making the father responsible for the additional costs or for visitation to occur during returns during the course of study.Same as above except the father does visit with the child. Not regularly, not consistently, and often not dependably, but sometimes, and remembers the big holidays, birthdays, and school events - sometimes. Same result as in example 2. The visitation schedule will most likely be changed to reflect the child’s school year responsibilities and the judge will probably order the additional transportation costs to be factored into the support agreement - which means both parents share the financial responsibility for the future visits.Parents are not married. Father was present at birth. Signed paternity acknowledgment, name is on birth certificate. Relationship ended shortly after. Father did not pay child support. Went to Court. Established paternity, support and visitation set. Father still didn’t pay support, but does exercise visitation reliably. Father is unwilling or unable to provide 100% of custodial care during the mother’s time abroad. The judge may still side with the mother, but there is going to be periodic and possibly expensive transportation visitation involved which may become the responsibility of the traveling party.This time around the father has joint custody and refuses to allow the removal of the child from the country while the custodial parent studies abroad, but not willing to assume full custody of the child himself. Does not petition the court - just refuses to sign the paperwork allowing the child to go. Now, the mother is the one who has to petition the court for permission.Father. is willing to assume 100% of custodial care and has joint custody or willing to now assume joint custody of child. Still didn’t pay child support, but exercises some or all of visitation, or now expresses an interest in exercising visitation - possibly arguing he was not capable of meeting the needs of an infant/toddler, but up to dealing with a school-age child. Has a stable home environment he shares with family or other life partner. Petitions the court to keep the child with him while the mother studies abroad. Demonstrates the financial resources to provide appropriate care and contribute to the transportation expenses for the child to visit with his mother periodically in the USA - but afraid if he grants the child permission to travel abroad to visit mother, the child will be “kidnapped” and not return to the USA. This is probably the worst case scenario from your perspective because no one knows what the judge will decide is in the “best interest of the child.”

US: This area of the law is complex. The department I am linking below is the actual US department that handles these matters. You may want to get a lawyer to help you. You may want to contact a law school clinic or legal aid and see if they can assist. You may also want to contact the US Embassy closest to where you live.Depending on what law was in place when you were born, you may already be a US citizen. Finding that out is going to take some legal research on what laws were in place when you were born.I am the Child of a U.S. CitizenCitizenship Through U.S. Parents There are two general ways to obtain citizenship through U.S. citizen parents: at birth, and after birth but before the age of 18. Congrehttps://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/i-am-the-child-of-a-us-citizenI am the Child of a U.S. CitizenCitizenship Through U.S. ParentsThere are two general ways to obtain citizenship through U.S. citizen parents: at birth, and after birth but before the age of 18. Congress has enacted laws that determine how citizenship is conveyed by a U.S. citizen parent (or parents) to children born outside of the United States.Who May Qualify for Acquisition of CitizenshipThe law in effect at the time of birth determines whether someone born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent (or parents) is a U.S. citizen at birth. In general, these laws require that at least one parent was a U.S. citizen, and the U.S. citizen parent had lived in the United States for a period of time.In addition, children born abroad may become U.S. citizens after birth. For information and eligibility requirements for specific time periods, see the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 12, Part H, Children of U.S. Citizens.A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at BirthA person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a person born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe. [1]In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; andThe U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision. [2]A person born abroad through Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) to a U.S. citizen gestational mother who is not also the genetic mother acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under INA 301 or INA 309 if:The person’s gestational mother is recognized by the relevant jurisdiction as the child’s legal parent at the time of the person’s birth; and​The person meets all other applicable requirements under either INA 301 or INA 309. [3]Until the Act of October 10, 1978, persons who had acquired U.S. citizenship through birth outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent had to meet certain physical presence requirements to retain their citizenship. This legislation eliminated retention requirements for persons who were born after October 10, 1952. There may be cases where a person who was born before that date, and therefore subject to the retention requirements, may have failed to retain citizenship. [4]An officer should determine whether a person acquired citizenship at birth by referring to the applicable statutory provisions and conditions that existed at the time of the person’s birth. These provisions have been modified extensively over the years. [5] The following sections provide the current law.B. Child Born in Wedlock [6]1. Child of Two U.S. Citizen Parents [7]A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:Both of the child’s parents are U.S. citizens; and​At least one parent had resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions.2. Child of U.S. Citizen Parent and U.S. National [8]A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:One parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national; and​The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of at least one year.3. Child of U.S. Citizen Parent and Alien Parent [9]A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:One parent is an alien and the other parent is a U.S. citizen; and​The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.Time abroad counts as physical presence in the United States if the time abroad was:As a member of the U.S. armed forces in honorable status;​Under the employment of the U.S. government or other qualifying organizations; or​As a dependent unmarried son or daughter of such persons.4. Child of a U.S. Citizen Mother and Alien Father [10]A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if:The child was born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934;​The child’s father is an alien;​The child’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth; and​The child’s U.S. citizen mother resided in the United States prior to the child’s birth.C. Child Born Out of Wedlock [11]1. Child of U.S. Citizen FatherGeneral Requirements for Fathers of Children Born Out of WedlockThe general requirements for acquisition of citizenship at birth [12] for a child born in wedlock also apply to a child born out of wedlock outside of the United States (or one of its outlying possessions) who claims citizenship through a U.S. citizen father. Specifically, the provisions apply in cases where:A blood relationship between the child and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;The child’s father was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth;The child’s father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the child until the child reaches 18 years of age; andOne of the following criteria is met before the child reaches 18 years of age:The child is legitimated under the law of his or her residence or domicile;​The father acknowledges in writing and under oath the paternity of the child; or​The paternity of the child is established by adjudication of a competent court.In addition, the residence or physical presence requirements contained in the relevant paragraph of INA 301 continue to apply to children born out of wedlock, who are claiming citizenship through their fathers.Written Agreement to Provide Financial SupportIn order for a child born out of wedlock outside of the United States (or one of its outlying possessions) to acquire U.S. citizenship through his or her father, Congress included a requirement that the father agree in writing to provide financial support for the child until the child reaches the age of 18. [13] Congress included the language to prevent children from becoming public charges. [14] USCIS interprets the phrase in the statute “has agreed in writing to provide financial support” [15] to mean that there must be documentary evidence that supports a finding that the father accepted the legal obligation to support the child until the age of 18.The written agreement of financial support may be dated at any time before the child’s 18th birthday. If the child is under the age of 18 at the time of filing an Application for Certificate of Citizenship, the father may provide the written agreement of financial support either concurrently with the filing of the application or prior to the adjudication of the application. USCIS may request the written agreement of financial support at the time of issuance of a Request for Evidence or at the time of an interview (unless the interview is waived).Alternatively, if the applicant is already over the age of 18, he or she may meet the requirement if one or more documents support a finding that the father accepted his legal obligation to support the child. In such cases, the evidence must have existed (and have been finalized) prior to the child’s 18th birthday and must have met any applicable foreign law or U.S. law governing the child’s or father’s residence to establish acceptance of financial responsibility. [16]In all cases, the applicant has the burden of proving the father has met any applicable requirements under the law to make an agreement to provide financial support. A written agreement of financial support is not required if the father died before the child’s 18th birthday. [17]Written Agreement RequirementsIn order for a document to qualify as a written agreement of financial support under INA 309(a)(3), the document:Must be in writing and acknowledged by the father; [18] ​Must indicate the father’s agreement to provide financial support for the child; [19] and​Must be dated before the child’s 18th birthday.In addition, USCIS considers whether the agreement was voluntary.Other Acceptable DocumentationA written agreement of financial support may come in different forms and documents. USCIS may consider other similar documentation in which the father accepts financial responsibility of the child until the age of 18. Some examples of documents USCIS may consider include:A previously submitted Affidavit of Support (Form I-134) or Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA (Form I-864);​Military Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) enrollment;​Written voluntary acknowledgement of a child in a jurisdiction where there is a legal requirement that the father provide financial support; [20]Documentation establishing paternity by a court or administrative agency with jurisdiction over the child’s personal status, if accompanied by evidence from the record of proceeding establishing the father initiated the paternity proceeding and the jurisdiction legally requires the father to provide financial support; or ​A petition by the father seeking child custody or visitation with the court of jurisdiction with an agreement to provide financial support and the jurisdiction legally requires the father to provide financial support.2. Child of U.S. Citizen MotherThe rules that determine whether a child born out of wedlock outside of the United States derives citizenship at birth from his or her U.S. citizen mother vary depending on when the child was born.Child Born On or After December 23, 1952 and Before June 12, 2017A child born between December 23, 1952 and June 12, 2017 who is born out of wedlock outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if:The child’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth; andThe child’s U.S. citizen mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for 1 continuous year prior to the child’s birth. [21]Child Born On or After June 12, 2017A child born on or after June 12, 2017, who is born out of wedlock outside of the United States or one of its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if:The child’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth; and​The child’s U.S. citizen mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for at least 5 years prior to the child’s birth (at least 2 years of which were after age 14). [22]Effect of Sessions v. Morales-Santana DecisionPrior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, [23] the physical presence requirements for children born out of wedlock were different for a child acquiring citizenship through a U.S. citizen mother than for those acquiring through a U.S. citizen father. An unwed U.S. citizen mother could transmit citizenship to her child if the mother was physically present in the United States for 1 continuous year prior to the child's birth. [24] An unwed U.S. citizen father, by contrast, was held to the longer physical presence requirement of 5 years (at least 2 years of which were after age 14) in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. [25]On June 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, that the different physical presence requirements for an unwed U.S. citizen father and an unwed U.S. citizen mother violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. [26] The U.S. Supreme Court indicated that the 5 years of physical presence (at least 2 years of which were after age 14) [27] requirement should apply prospectively to all cases involving a child born out of wedlock outside the United States to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, regardless of the gender of the parent. [28]The U.S. Supreme Court decision effectively eliminated, prospectively, the 1 year continuous physical presence requirement that previously applied to unwed U.S. citizen mothers, and replaced it with the higher physical presence requirement that previously applied to unwed U.S. citizen fathers. [29] After Sessions v. Morales-Santana, the 1-year continuous physical presence requirement[30] remains in effect only for those children born prior to June 12, 2017 outside of the United States to unwed U.S. citizen mothers.Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United Stateshttps://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-h-chapter-3

We should put forth objective items first and foremost - dealing in facts is always better, no? Absolutes like “virtually all” and putting forth your view of 3rd wave feminism + large ideas like “race issues” with a blanket statement like “I cannot agree with them on” is probably not what one has in mind.Also, remember that the United States, Conservatism, Liberalism and Feminism are big things. There’s tons of room for a lot of things to go on at once.So, let’s start here -The current Republican Platform: https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdfThe current NOW Issues List: National Organization for WomenI would encourage a reading of both seriously before committing to labels. However, let’s read up on the ideas that you identified v. the current platform.#1. Wage Gap. NOW Advocates this under Economic Justice.Economic Justice is defined as follows: NOW advocates for wide range of economic justice issues affecting women, from the glass ceiling to the sticky floor of poverty. These include welfare reform, livable wages, job discrimination, pay equity, housing, social security and pension reform, and much more.Do conservatives care about these issues? Let’s check the platform:On Breaking the Glass Ceiling: We reiterate our support for both the advancement of women in the military and their exemption from direct ground combat units and infantry battalions… Military readiness should not be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.That’s right. The official party of conservatives wants to reverse the Pentagon decision. Two Women successfully completed Army Ranger training - something less than 10% of soldiers can complete - which makes a confusing argument for “political correctness.” After all, if you can complete the training, what is the politically correct issue being met?We’re not the first country to allow women in combat roles, so this is not new territory. We’ve also redefined warfare, making 1940’s arguments mostly moot. With an all-volunteer army and our need for readiness, how does a conservative deny anyone that can prove their physical and mental fitness?On Livable Wages: Our economy has become unnecessarily weak with stagnant wages. People living paycheck to paycheck are struggling, sacrificing, and suffering. BUT Minimum wage is an issue that should be handled at the state and local level.I’m going to make a personal appeal to all conservatives that are truly fiscal conservatives right now. That up there is craziness. That whole “we care about your wages, but we really don’t want to do anything about it” is not a sovereignty of the states issue. That is 100% straight up watching someone get beat up in the streets and hoping someone else might call 911…or something.Please look at real impacts and real economists - stop believing that the impact of raising the minimum wage is lost jobs, massive price hikes and Mad-Max wastelands. Studies look at what happened when cities raised minimum wage Remember, the United States is a consumer-driven economy. The closer you are to the bottom, the more likely you are to spend 100% of your paycheck. This is more money spread out into the economy, which can create more jobs. The costs tend to be negligible and the rewards high. That’s what you’re supposed to want in business - low cost/high reward. If a wealthy business individual is spending less than 100% of their funds and they’re given more funds in the form of tax breaks/bonuses, the notion that this is going to be put back into the economy without additional demand drivers is a bit like thinking the fish population will explode if we just build more ships.On Job Discrimination: We denounce bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance. Therefore, we oppose discrimination based on race, sex, religion, creed, disability, or national origin and support statutes to end such discrimination.Wow - as conservatives, you nearly agree 100% with NOW on this issue. Save one little thing and a big sneaky thing:Little thing - SPOILER - not so little. The Conservative platform leaves out sexual orientation. Want to know how they feel about it really - check out this under their sort-of support for Title IX - That same provision of law is now being used by bureaucrats — and by the current President of the United States — to impose a social and cultural revolution upon the American people by wrongly redefining sex discrimination to include sexual orientation or other categories. Their agenda has nothing to do with individual rights; it has everything to do with power. They are determined to reshape our schools — and our entire society — to fit the mold of an ideology alien to America’s history and traditions.The sneaky thing - SPOILER - also not so little. It’s a bit buried between the lines, but notice the religious intolerance call-out and the support of statutes? Know what they’re aiming for in there? That’s under their First Amendment support (which skips over Press, Speech & Assembly) and notes this: We endorse the First Amendment Defense Act, Republican legislation in the House and Senate which will bar government discrimination against individuals and businesses for acting on the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. BONUS This Act would protect the non-profit tax status of faith-based adoption agencies, the accreditation of religious educational institutions, the grants and contracts of faith-based charities and small businesses…FYI, text of 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.I am perplexed as to how these purport to show off Conservative values, especially Constitutional Conservative values. We have no law establishing a national religion and everyone can absolutely be free to practice their religion. Where the rub comes in is where it comes in for everyone - whether your personal faith and choice of daily vocation are in conflict and how you’ll attempt to reconcile such activity. That’s Ethics 101. If one has decided that they must be completely orthodox when it comes to serving sinners and their religious teachers have offered no leeway or additional guidance, then this reconciliation will likely be a difficult path - much as it is for many of the most orthodox followers.It should also be noted that the farther one travels over attempting to legislate the ability to discriminate (call it what you will), the further one’s party will distance themselves from the young, college educated, female and wealthy - those most likely to support the LGBTQ community - Section 2: Long-Term Views of Homosexuality, Gay Marriage and Adoption While popular support is never the sole reason to support something, when your arguments are largely supported through religious argument and unsupported by scientific evidence and the vast majority of your supporters are over the age of 65 (and remember a time that LGBTQ individuals were literally criminals), you might want to take a look at why your party has decided to take a stance that they will have to reverse at a point where it will be embarrassing to have waited so long. This is simple branding.On Pay Equity: You’re right, there is nothing in the platform on this whatsoever.But here’s the deal. There’s been much that’s been said about the 77 cents not being a true number. Crunching numbers abound and there’s much that’s said about how women take time off from work, how women fail to negotiate as much and how women take more time off from work.Is that because women don’t really want to succeed? Or is it because gender roles are still so tightly defined that the notion that a family would sit down and decide who would take the time off for children and child-rearing is still considered “strange” in 2016? That this seems like a wacky feminist issue is also sad. This is a family issue. Even those without children should care about this, as they’ll eventually find their female co-workers with children unfairly burdened with child-rearing responsibilities above and beyond their male co-workers with children.I tried to find examples of supporting child care and/or maternity/paternity leave in the platform, but there is none. Mostly, there’s a ton on mom & dad households and making sure no one has access to abortion. Oh, and a lot on the reform desperately needed in public schools due to the lack of prayer and religion and common core.Honestly, though. As a Conservative, don’t you want to see everyone getting paid what they should get paid? Do you really want anyone on the planet as a worker getting shafted in some type of sneaky negotiation game that only exists for a select few? If you truly have the same background and skills as the next guy when you’re hired, you should be paid the same. This is trading a 5-minute quickie win in for the long-term loss. People do know when things aren’t fair. Heck, even Capuchins know it:Know what this does long term? It weakens the economy? That’s billions and billions in lost wages, lost intellectual capital for the companies that women leave for greener pastures. Not to mention, each time we attempt to intellectualize behavior like this, it allows for all sorts of these slights against people in general. Either we want to be a society of asshats or we want to be better people. We can and should always strive for such things.On Housing: The Federal Housing Administration, which provides taxpayer-backed guarantees in the mortgage market, should no longer support high income individuals, and the public should not be financially exposed by risks taken by FHA officials. We will end the government mandates that required Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and federally insured banks to satisfy lending quotas to specific groups. Discrimination should have no place in the mortgage industry. Zoning decisions have always been, and must remain, under local control. The current Administration is trying to seize control of the zoning process through its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulation. It threatens to undermine zoning laws in order to socially engineer every community in the country.So, there’s a lot to unpack in the Conservative platform. It is anti-discrimination, but also anti Fair Housing regulation. They want us to know this is a program to socially engineer our communities - somehow. Plus bonus claims of supporting the rich & lending quotas.Let’s unpack these things so we can be sure of what the Conservative platform really is:The FHA support of high-income individuals. First and foremost, FHA is not a lender. It’s a loan-insurer. Buyers have to have a 640 minimum FICO score to qualify. It does allow for lower down payments (3% - 6%). Loans in excess of $625,000 have higher insurance premiums. The low down payment is why many high-income individuals are attracted to the FHA loan; many individuals feel this is not in the spirit of the program.FHA Risks are high. The FHA insurance fund is well above their mandated reserve amounts. What the FHA does is insure about 15% of mortgages in the US. Not to go all tin-foil, but outside of vague notions of “could be a bubble” - which no agency in government can possibly escape - if one starts looking at bank and mortgage donations, it could be noted that ensuring high-income and a larger portion of other individuals are pushed away from the FHA into banks/mortgage companies helps bottom lines that involve stockholders.Lending Quotas for Banks: This sounds terrible, right? Only it’s not. It’s a guarantee that low-income borrowers that qualify will get loans - and by low-income, they mean middle class. If the Banks will be receiving federal insurance (which they benefit from), they are also going to help their community: 24 percent of mortgages should be bought by Freddie or Fannie for homes for low-income borrowers, or those with incomes no greater than 80 percent of an area’s median income. Wrap your head around that oppressive stat. 1/4 of your borrowers should be in the bottom 80% of income earners for an area. Meaning 3/4ths of your borrowers can be in the top 20%. Keep this in mind: In percentage terms, 51% of adults lived in middle-income households, 29% in lower-income households and 20% in upper-income households. There is a lower-income qualifier - 6 percent of mortgages for borrowers considered very low income, who have incomes no greater than 50 percent of the median income of the area.Socially engineering the community: AFFH - Under the rule, any jurisdiction that receives money from the HUD must analyze its housing occupancy by race, class, English proficiency, and other categories. It must then analyze factors which contribute to any imbalance, and formulate a plan to remedy the imbalance. The plan can be approved or disapproved by HUD. Keep in mind, their defense to this is “Zoning Laws” - none of which can cover race, class, English Proficiency or the very-thin-ice “other categories.”Now that we’ve unpacked the platform, this is the deal: The Conservative Platform attempts to draw conclusions without asking questions. Not the least of which is whether or not heavily segregated communities today are the result of social engineering that comes from systemic racism.Why is this a feminist issue? Because a lot of barriers to fair housing/home ownership/the so-called bad neighborhoods impact women to a disproportionate degree. That the notion of just studying the actual demographics of a city and analyzing why it settles in such a way is so unsettling to someone doesn’t speak of Conservative values - it speaks of fear. Frankly, this will lead to uncomfortable questions for everyone. However, if communities utilize this information, plan and improve their way of life for everyone (there will be impact studies), how is the increased achievement of individual success across the board not a Conservative Value?On Social Security and Pension reform: As Republicans, we oppose tax increases and believe in the power of markets to create wealth and to help secure the future of our Social Security system. Saving Social Security is more than a challenge. It is our moral obligation to those who trusted in the government’s word.Okay, so they’re sneaking in room for privatization, but it seems that Feminists and Conservatives believe in Social Security. There’s also one line about Pension portability.Feminism isn’t some off-the-wall thing, nor is it something that ended with the ability to sign your own lease or get your own credit card. Feminism believes in a lot of economic issues that are harder on women. With retirement today, we still have a number of women that spent no time in the formal workplace or took significant time off to raise children. This means that they depend on support from spousal retirement plans or from relatives. As we continue to push more women to child-rearing responsibilities and set up systems that make it more difficult for men and women to make realistic daycare choices, we’ll find more women depending heavily on programs like social security.#2. Rape Culture. NOW Advocates this under Violence Against Women.NOW Statement: NOW is unique in its approach to the issue of violence against women, emphasizing that there are many interrelated aspects to the issue — domestic violence; sexual assault; sexual harassment; violence at abortion clinics; hate crimes across lines of gender, sexuality and race; the gender bias in our judicial system that further victimizes survivors of violence; and the violence of poverty emphasized by the radical right’s attacks on poor women and children — all of which result from society’s attitudes toward women and efforts to “keep women in their place.”I would like to give you the party platform items on a number of these items:Domestic Violence: We celebrate the millions of Americans who open their hearts, homes, churches to mothers in need and women fleeing abuse.Sexual Assault: Sexual assault is a terrible crime. We commend the good-faith efforts by law enforcement, educational institutions, and their partners to address that crime responsibly. Whenever reported, it must be promptly investigated by civil authorities and prosecuted in a courtroom, not a faculty lounge. Questions of guilt or innocence must be decided by a judge and jury, with guilt determined beyond a reasonable doubt. Those convicted of sexual assault should be punished to the full extent of the law. The Administration’s distortion of Title IX to micromanage the way colleges and universities deal with allegations of abuse contravenes our country’s legal traditions and must be halted before it further muddles this complex issue and prevents the proper authorities from investigating and prosecuting sexual assault effectively with due process.Sexual Harassment:Violence at Abortion Clinics:Hate Crimes Across Lines of Gender: they address one instance of “hate” issues: We support the right of the people to conduct their businesses in accordance with their religious beliefs and condemn public officials who have proposed boycotts against businesses that support traditional marriage. We pledge to protect those business owners who have been subjected to hate campaigns, threats of violence, and other attempts to deny their civil rights.Sexuality: That language opened up for girls and women a world of opportunities that had too often been denied to them. That same provision of law is now being used by bureaucrats — and by the current President of the United States — to impose a social and cultural revolution upon the American people by wrongly redefining sex discrimination to include sexual orientation or other categories.Race: As the Party of Abraham Lincoln, we must continue to foster solutions to America’s difficult challenges when it comes to race relations today. We continue to encourage equality for all citizens and access to the American Dream.Gender bias in our judicial system that further victimizes survivors of violence:Violence of poverty: We oppose policies and laws that create a financial incentive for or encourage cohabitation. Moreover, marriage remains the greatest antidote to child poverty…Republicans propose to evaluate a poverty program by whether it actually reduces poverty and increases the personal independence of its participants… Poverty, not wealth, is the gravest threat to the environment, while steady economic growth brings the technological advances which make environmental progress possible.Keep Women in Their Place: We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens with sexual risk avoidance education that sets abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior. That approach — the only one always effective against premarital pregnancy and sexually-transmitted disease — empowers teens to achieve optimal health outcomes.Reading this - and the lack of statements - should let you know what the shorthand “rape culture,” which leads to the larger issue of violence against women. It’s a pervasive issue that is not only about women who suffer violence, but a society that has several growing dark corners that can openly treat women as “less than” which allows for a de-humanization of victims to the point of vilification.Breaking this down:The only acknowledgement in the entire platform of domestic violence is a hearty thank-you to people taking in victims. This is because the Conservative platform wants to take away the notion that an abused girlfriend/wife that may have also been raped should be highly discouraged from considering abortion. That’s the entire context of caring about domestic abuse - trying to encourage individuals to give beaten pregnant women a place to go because of the fetus.Sexual Assault. This probably reads really strange. Why? Because this is the bathroom bill. See, we don’t have a platform against Sexual Assault per se, we just have one if we can perpetuate the stereotype that all transgender individuals are sexual superpredators and not fellow women looking to pee.Sexual Harassment. It’s either all fixed from the Conservative viewpoint or totally not worth talking about ever again.Violence at Abortion Clinics. For as much as this document talks about Abortion, it never condemns violence as an action against. Just any of the Supreme Court decisions that struck down super-restrictive actions against abortion.Hate Crimes. Only against Christians. Because it’s tough out there for the super-majority.Sexuality. That’s right. Defining sex discrimination to include sexuality is wrong. See the marriage issue for Conservatives, history et al.Well, I guess we acknowledged some nice things about race, Lincoln and the American dream. For as specific as that platform gets on everything else, though, this is sad.Gender Bias. Nothing was said. Sure, there’s a lot about activist judges when it comes to business/abortion, but not about women. And there’s plenty - on the heels of the Baltimore police reports regarding how officers treat young men, the buried story was how they treat victims of sexual assault: Some Women Won’t ‘Ever Again’ Report a Rape in Baltimore; or that police reactions to domestic violence range from dismissive to openly hostile: Highlights: Responses from the Field - or that the New Orleans PD was misclassifying rape & assault cases: Gender Bias New Orleans Police,mishandling sexual assault,Women's Law Project - or any of the recent stories of young men given incredibly light sentences for rape because of “their potential and stuff.” Conservatives have no opinion on this form of justice?Violence of Poverty. Of course their stance is that the poor are the problem - and even hurting the environment. You know what? Of the one-in-five Americans who participated in a program like Medicaid or food stamps from 2009 through 2012, the Census Bureau reported this week, 56 percent stopped participating within 36 months, while 43 percent lingered between three and four years. Nearly one-third quit receiving benefits within one year. So where’s the real stance on Poverty - other than trying to keep people from getting into better neighborhoods?Keeping Women in their Place: See above + lack of reproductive rights.If you don’t view women as objects of rape, that’s awesome. But you know what, Conservatives do not have a terrific record with women. Not trusting women with their reproductive rights and then blaming single mothers for a host of woes after actively suppressing reproductive education, access to birth control, programs to encourage home ownership and vilifying programs that can temporarily keep you buoyant until you’re through a rough patch…well, that doesn’t really walk-the-walk.#3 Race Issues.Well, the Conservative Platform has this lovely thing to say:As the Party of Abraham Lincoln, we must continue to foster solutions to America’s difficult challenges when it comes to race relations today. We continue to encourage equality for all citizens and access to the American Dream.NOW has been working on Racial Injustice since 1966.NOW condemns the racism that inflicts a double burden of race and sex discrimination on women of color. Seeing human rights as indivisible, we are committed to identifying and fighting against those barriers to equality and justice that are imposed by racism. A leader in the struggle for civil rights since its inception in 1966, NOW is committed to diversifying our movement, and we continue to fight for equal opportunities for women of color in all areas including employment, education and reproductive rights. NOW’s Combatting Racism Committee is working to encourage growth at all levels within NOW of multiracial task forces to combat racism.So, remember that awkward Black Issues town hall Donald Trump did? The one where the audience was pretty much all white? Know what no one said to him ever?The word multiracial.Sure, they had a good time talking about stop-and-frisk and law and order. I’m sure that went over as well as me and my friends sitting in a living room talking about just what would solve the problems with all those darn kids and their elecromagadgets that keep walking on our lawns.See what I’m driving at here?Rich white guy sits in room with a bunch of white folk to figure out how to solve the black person problem.Want to know why feminists have so much crossover with minority causes? Because we understand what it is to be marginalized on a regular basis - to have people assume we’re the problem and if we’d just do this or that thing, everything would be awesome. However, we’re with it enough to know that experience only goes so far - that we need to hear from those with direct experience - really hear from them - before we formulate solutions on what to do about the issue.Feminism is searching for answers to questions that keep begging more questions.If Conservatives truly believe all the questions have been answered, you’ll never have anything in common with Feminists. If you feel that there are questions, but you’re personally more interested in different questions, there’s room for everyone.Mostly, though, think of the money we’d all have if everyone chilled and was cool to each other - none of this restrictive nonsense. That’s gotta be a Conservative ideal you can get behind.