The Task Force to Study the Causes of Fatherlessness in Connecticut is tentatively scheduled to hold a press conference on Thursday, June 26th at 2:00 pm–and to have its first meeting immediately after the press conference.

Those of you who received FIC Action’s May 22nd legislative wrap-up e-mail know what a significant breakthrough this is for the pro-family cause in Connecticut. And it might not have happened but for the hundreds of messages you, our members, sent to the legislature. This bill, which died a quick and quiet death last year, was passed by three committees and unanimously approved by the Senate this year because of you.

Thanks to your efforts, the task force survived inaction by the House and is tentatively set to begin on Thursday. Watch for more information as it becomes available.

11 Responses to “Fatherhood Press Conference June 26th”

  1. on 23 Jun 2008 at 7:52 amDave

    I can’t imagine why politicians would fail to support efforts promoting responsible fatherhood. This is an issue that should always have been embraced by those on both sides of the aisle. Yet there is still a media fascination with unwed motherhood, and the radical feminist message that women can do everything for themselves. Can’t we see the connection between articles like “Unwed & Unashamed” (Hartford Courant, Jan. 2007) and the so-called “Gloucester Pact” (in which at least 17 high school girls in Gloucester, MA plotted together to become unwed pregnant teens)?

    It is nevertheless encouraging to see the convergence of political speech on this subject. Barack Obama addresses the issue in this way:

    Any fool can have a child. That doesn’t make you a father. It’s the courage to raise a child that makes you a father.

    And with equally sincere admiration for the virtues of fatherhood, John McCain has said:

    There is nothing in life like a child that you can nurture and love.

    Serving a cause greater than yourself is the most ennobling of all avocations.

    I look forward to the efforts of the newly-created task force in addressing the problem of fatherlessness. Definitive action is needed to reverse this trend towards absent fathers.

  2. on 23 Jun 2008 at 5:03 pmtommi

    How exactly do you expect the government to force responsibility on men?

  3. on 24 Jun 2008 at 5:31 pmDave


    While this concept may seem alien to you folks in the UK (where Scottish teachers recently forbade students from making Father’s Day cards, for fear of offending single moms and lesbian parents), we here in the USA are a freedom loving people. The point is not that the government should “force responsibility on men” (as if it could somehow “compel” such behavior), but rather to encourage the proper role of fatherhood and to rightfully hold persons accountable for the consequences of their actions.

    For a start, try reading the law which established this committee here in Connecticut. The ultimate purpose is to identify how public policy can promote fatherhood versus fatherlessness, and how it can discourage childbearing outside of marriage. It’s a 1-year investigative committee which is tasked with researching the subject, analyzing the impact of policies, and making recommendations on or before June 1, 2009.

    Asking it to pronounce its findings now at the moment of its inception (as you’ve done in your post) is truly ridiculous. It hasn’t even been formally launched; and the first meeting isn’t even scheduled to occur for another two days. Don’t you think that, in fairness, we should let it do the work for which it was organized before passing judgment on the effort?

  4. on 26 Jun 2008 at 8:43 pmtommi

    So your state government is going to spend taxpayer money to create a committee which will look at fatherhood. Lovely.
    After a bit under a year, said committee will opine that, after much investigation they must conclude that fatherhood is indeed quite a good thing and every child should have a father. Wags will point out that every child does have a father; that’s how the biology of the thing works. The committee will cough mirthlessly and say they meant, obviously, that the father should be present in the home or else he has no appreciable effect on the child, beneficial or otherwise.
    The committee will point out the causes of fatherlessness: premarital sex, divorce, artificial insemination, jail, lesbians, unwed women. They will probably leave out war, but maybe not. People will not express surprise. Among those who pay any attention at all there will be debate on sex education, birth control, no-fault divorce, sexuality, adoption standards, just as there always is. Outrage will spout on all sides. Pithy sound bites will be used to garner support and contributions by every group with a dog in the fight.

    Eventually, there will be adverts at bus stops, with messages about the value of fathers, aimed at urban youth. “It takes a big man to be a father.” “A father is someone to look up to.” “Fatherhood: are you up to it?” These adverts will be as successful as the AdCouncil ads have been in the war on drugs.

    The next year, the state will fund a committee to study the causes of water in the street after a rainfall.

  5. on 27 Jun 2008 at 9:41 amPeter

    So I guess you won’t be applying for membership on the task force.

  6. on 27 Jun 2008 at 11:14 amTricia

    “tommi” writes *as if* (because, of course, I really have no idea who he/she is) she is a ‘militant’ “feminist,” who has been thoroughly indoctrinated in the “gender is just a social construct” balderdash of the “Women’s Studies” movement at universities.

    These types (who seem *anything BUT* “feminine” to me) feel compelled at every opportunity to lash out at anything that—and anyone who—contradicts that view.

    My husband and I recently met (on the JFK air-train) and chatted with a lovely woman who was taking her two young sons for a visit to her native Hungary.

    When she was in her early 20’s (some 15 years earlier) she was teaching at a preschool in the U.S., and was having difficulty with one boy–especially finding something to praise him for. She was so gladdened one day when he held the door open for a little girl. So she praised him for his kindness in helping his classmate, and gave him a sticker as recognition for his positive behavior.

    The next day, this young teacher was flabbergasted when the boy’s “big lesbian mom” showed up at the school and “angrily threw the sticker at the teacher,” saying: “We don’t want our our son taught that kind of [sexist] stuff!”

  7. on 27 Jun 2008 at 7:00 pmDavid

    Tricia, perhaps if you had really read what tommi wrote you would realize that it is exactly what happens when the gov’t puts together a “task force” to study something which is ultimately not a gov’t issue. Instead of using it as yet another opportunity to lash out at those you loath – and who actually have nothing to do with topic at hand anyway -why not just be amused (or maybe alarmed would be better) with the truth in what tommi said and hope that his/her pessimism is proven wrong when the task force has completed it’s task. If they are willing to take a real honest look at all the factors involved then it could do some good, if they’re just looking for a place to point fingers then indeed, our tax money will be wasted. I rarely read the Courant was anything reported about the press conference?

  8. on 29 Jun 2008 at 12:29 amTricia


    I DID “really read” every word of tommi’s post. The whole tone of it was sarcastic and very derisive of the very notion of examining “how public policy can promote fatherhood versus fatherlessness,” as Dave wrote in post #3. (I apologize if I offended tommi in my response, but the style of her post reminded me of the incident I described—and I was using the lovely former pre-school teacher’s words of description in my last two paragraphs.)

    Did YOU “really read” Dave’s post, by chance? (Or are you ignoring him, in a continuing ‘boycott’ because of past feuds with him?)

    I will NOT apologize for calling the whole “gender is just a social construct” notion “balderdash,” or claptrap—for that is what it is.

    God created “man AND woman—male and female created He them.” They ARE different, they have different roles, strengths and ‘gifts’ to give their children. And they are NOT interchangeable as parents, no matter how many gay activists, women’s studies acolytes, and supposed “experts” may declare otherwise.

    Sorry for letting off so much steam—-but I guess you’ll think twice next time about ‘pushing my buttons,’ David! LOL! 🙂

  9. on 29 Jun 2008 at 12:54 amTricia


    “I rarely read the Courant” either, so I cannot answer your query: “was anything reported about the press conference?”

    I find I still have some steam unreleased. Regarding “gov’t puts together a ‘task force’ to study something which is *ultimately not a gov’t issue:*”

    I submit to you that much MORE ill-considered ideas of overreaching by government are the paying of welfare to teenage unwed mothers; and meddling with the 6000 years plus commonly understood definition of “marriage” as “a union of a man and a woman.”

    Governments would have done much better to conduct serious research, “put[ting] together a ‘task force’ to study” *these* issues, for at LEAST a year or two before making such drastic societal changes.

  10. on 29 Jun 2008 at 7:39 pmDavid

    Yes I read Dave’s post and I agree with it. It would be silly to not read what someone says no matter what may have happened in the past, it is only a blog. Besides, I have no feud with Dave, he reads into my words something that isn’t there, but that’s his prerogative. And I did not ask you to apologize for anything you said on this thread. I seriously doubt if I would think twice before saying something I believe. Whether or not it pushes your buttons has no bearing on what I say. I would not deliberately antagonize you, that is counterproductive. Plus Tricia, you must admit that you have strong emotions about these issues and can quite easily get your buttons pushed. Let off steam, you can’t hurt anybody 🙂

    So, are you saying that teenage unwed mothers should be punished and left to make it or not? Who would really pay the price for that – the child. The whole system needs to be revisited and restructured for sure but I don’t understand the attitude I see among some conservatives that seems to focus on punitive measures, not helping the mother and child or society in the least. Are you suggesting a return to the days when an unwed young girl was rushed off into hiding until after the birth and the child taken away for adoption?

    No matter how you define “marriage” the gov’t shouldn’t be involved at all. The gov’t cannot “marry” people, that is a religious or spiritual issue. The gov’t can provide legal protections for couples – civil unions – but that has nothing to do with the “definition” of marriage and is not meddling with anything. In the 6000 year plus (guess we’ll just ignore those that lived before then) that you claim there was a commonly understood definition, how many was it controlled by gov’t entities accept where the religious leaders were the gov’t? I know that SOME of the opposition to SSM comes from a concern for the children and that is valid. But the fact is that there will always be gay couples raising children and if the concern is for the children then legal protections for the family can only help.

  11. on 30 Jun 2008 at 8:43 amTricia


    As to your “So, are you saying that teenage unwed mothers should be punished and left to make it or not? Who would really pay the price for that – the child.”

    NO, I am not saying “that teenage unwed mothers should be punished.”

    BUT, enabling “teenage unwed mothers” to keep their babies (which by far the majority of them DO now) and *attempt* to raise them, through the payment of welfare to them is totally wrongheaded, though well-intentioned. The results of the welfare payments were vividly described by Dave on the other current thread on “Sex Ed Fight:”

    “Children born of children, who are then raised without the support of both a mother and a father. An increased financial burden on the rest of society, as we cope with the impact to public health and welfare. A dysfunctional society that can no longer compete effectively with the rest of the world. ”

    Dave also wrote: “In this death spiral towards moral chaos, our children are being misled to set aside the wisdom of past generations, through which our previous moral standards were developed for the collective good.” (This comment is also very pertinent to the whole SSM issue.)

    The situation that Dave has eloquently described— which was brought on in good part exactly BY government meddling in the form of welfare payments to unmarried pregnant teens—IS, I submit, “punishment” of a never-ending nature for these moms and their children—and their children ad infinitum.

    In case you have not figured this out, David, if the welfare payments were not there for these unmarried pregnant teens, the parents would be saying “I cannot afford to raise your child for you. You need to make an adoption plan for this baby.” (Are you aware that most childless couples in this country who want to adopt a baby basically have to go overseas, spending $25,000 or more, BECAUSE virtually all of the teen moms in this country ‘keep’ their babies?)

Leave a Reply