WASHINGTON, August 23, 2002 ( – Promiscuous unmarried women are reportedly so embarrassed about divulging personal details under Florida’s adoption law that they would rather abort their unborn babies than publish information that could help locate the father. The story was front-page news even in Canadian papers today.  The law, once more or less supported by conservatives and fathers’ advocacy groups, is now being challenged in an appeals court after a lower court ruled that it does not apply in rape cases. Specifically, the law applies to women who put a love child up for adoption but do not name the father. In order to locate the father, it requires that the women admit to every sexual encounter that could have caused the pregnancy, along with names and descriptions of the men. Some of the information would then be published in the local newspaper where the child may have been conceived—so that a father who wants to contest the adoption can step forward.  The bill was plagued with so many problems that some Christians as well as feminists opposed it and Jeb Bush, Florida’s Republican Governor, refrained from a veto only because he was promised it would be quickly amended—which the legislature has failed to do. The main result so far is that the number of babies being put up for adoption has sharply declined.  National Post front-page coverage no longer online.  Story available at


Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.