MADISON, WI (WSAU) – Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers’s office introduced a bill on Friday afternoon that would change the way a Wisconsin state law addresses biological women and men.
According to the bill known as 2025 Senate Bill 45, which was first reported on by conservative radio host Dan O’Donnell, Section 3106 contains numerous examples of terms such as wife, husband, mother, and father being crossed out and removed in favor of terms like spouse, person, and even inseminated person.
The word “mother” is not just a biological designation. The word is pregnant with cultural meaning connoting love, protection, caring, family leadership, and so much more. When someone carries the title of “mother”, they carry much more than the simple biological fact that someone else inseminated them. How insulting it is to a woman and mother to diminish her importance to only being something that a man did to her. Women are not livestock. Mothers are not just inseminated persons.
His consistency at pursuing stupidity is remarkable. This is as dead as his budget proposals.
That probably came from his chief of staff, the insufferable b***h who has been running the government since Day One. Evers is just not bright enough to do the job–and, like Biden, he has a wide and highly visible lazy streak.
In another gross insult to women Tony Evers calls mothers cum dumpsters.
Wow you people sure know how to complain. For a group that used to believe in personal freedoms and constantly complain that you are afraid to use the wrong terms, you sure care about terms a lot.
This is actually a good way to keep up with the times. Some families have two mothers. And some people who are inseminated are not the mother based on whose eggs they are and the agreements that were made. Science people, the law always is trying to keep up with it.
>Wow you people sure know how to complain.
Just amazing…
>For a group that used to believe in personal freedoms and constantly complain that you are afraid to use the wrong terms, you sure care about terms a lot.
The randomness of this comment is somewhat dizzying. Libs, or the LLGBTQ+++ queens, are attempting to mock cons for us ‘complaining’ that they are continuing to try to rename legal terms to LLGBTQA terms (liberal, lesbian, gay, bi, queer, atheist and any others you want to add).
A little order here: Libs are attempting to rename things here that do not need renaming. DEI is gone for the next 4 years and truly idiotic Dem Pols are the ones not with the times. That bill will go absolutely nowhere, but your idiot representation is going to waste everyone’s time putting it out anyway. Is it okay for all people to start using nigger again or is that and crackuh still only available to black people? That would be a personal freedom under your usage above so why, if others can use it normally, can’t I. There is no conflict in being against renaming ‘mothers’ as inseminated people and still being for personal freedoms that I see. What personal freedoms are you referring to us no longer believing in?
We aren’t complaining about nor are we afraid of using incorrect terminology, it is the lib way that is moving towards making terms that they do not approve of an actual crime to say out loud. As that is the liberal path even simpletons in independent thought like yourself could surely see the interest in keeping ‘mother’ on the approved usage for women with babies. Inseminated person is not being added to the list, it is replacing the list. Mother and father are being crossed out. People in other liberal countries are already being put in jail for using no longer free speech and we would have had that before the end of KH’s Presidency. And with the way the justice system had been weaponized we can bet that no good little libs would have been on the arrest list. And the biggest joke is that you libs refuse to see the precipice you were a few steps away from voting in. I care about terms that are widely and fully accepted becoming illegal, that much is true.
I care about our language and I see no reason to label our genders in more terms than man, woman or hermaphrodite with legal equivalents of boy, girl, husband, wife, mother and father et al. You want to add ‘inseminated person’ for libs to use in legalese terminology, get a majority in the State and pass it in. Cross out the terms that even 95% of libs use and I have no idea why those 95% want to replace the terminology in the first place. What a great final wedding statement: “I now pronounce you spouse and inseminatible person. You may kiss the potential baby carrier.”
Science is not being kept up with, only a true idiot would believe that this proposed change is intended keep up with science. Science has not proven that mother or father are no longer scientifically correct, have they? You want full equality? Why make a separate term for the egg carrier? There is no legal reason for it, where anyone is being excluded by the current lawful terminology in any way. An equal society in the lib dream sense would have no difference between the mothers so why are you always so eager to change it to something repugnant to Christians? Oops, I just gave away the purpose of the law, didn’t I.
This whole DEI stupidity doesn’t promote equality or inclusion in the least. it is actually designed to have the opposite effect. There is no average female or male described in the “inclusive” LGBTQ. If you want to create equality, then you don’t start separating every group in America, you take all those trait identifying terms away. There is no white husband under the law that gives them different rights than a black husband today and gay also falls under an identifying trait. A gay man is just a man to me. To libs he is a different species or a different sex or however you want to describe it. And to lib politicians, he/him/his/she/her/hers/they/them/theirs/ze/xe/xers/hir etc. is a way to drive wedges between groups of people, mainly to look like their champions that they should then vote for.
Whether they believe the same things as their politicians or if they are just foolish, libs are the ones voting for racist policies not conservatives. We didn’t endorse antisemitism, you did by voting for Dems looking for votes any way possible. We didn’t endorse separating gays, lesbians, etc. from the rest of society by herding them into new categories and calling them protected, and thus due more favorable protections from the law (potentially painting a target on their backs).
How does that even work, anyway? Is a grandmother going to be renamed a grandinseminated person under the law? Remember, mother will be crossed out. It would not be proper to let grandparents use the terms anymore either, right?
On Price is Right, will people asked about themselves be required to say things like: “I am an inseminated person of 4 children…”
T, the first rule of the Universe is Order. That’s why the Derrida-Left wants to impose Disorder, whether through inversion of property rights in favor of alien invasions, or through mutilation of children to un-do Nature, or in pursuit of other biological impossibilities, such as queer “marriage” and child-bearing. And they must impose it, as normal humans simply will not go along if it is merely “wished”, as in the case of not using the “N” word.
The other word for “disorder” is “chaos.” There are plenty of Biblical references that term, all of them connected to Hell/Sheol. Seems to be where your interlocutor wants to be comfortable. Good luck with that.
Short story. My younger sister had problems having kids. My wife enjoyed being pregnant and we had just had our first kid. We debated carrying my sister fertilized eggs via my wife. Who is the “mother”? Or maybe Dad29 can give some fairytale biblical example of this?? He seems to have some set “normal” for him and his world that never changes or evolves.
Thankfully IVF took for her a few months later and I now have a niece and nephew.
Once again, using inclusive terms that better represent what is happening in the world. We are probably not 30 years away from artificial wombs that can carry a child.
Again the right would rather fight some made up “woke-ism”. Fighting windmills.
Not short enough.
Another little story.
My wife works in disability claims for her company’s clients. Child birth is one of the most common claims. In cases of surrogate or any other aid in becoming pregnant, the law is simple. The baby bearer and the receiving mother both get benefits. The bearer of the baby gets 6 weeks off for a natural birth or 8 weeks for a C-section standard. The person becoming the mother to the child gets 8-16 weeks depending on what the company offers for baby bonding. If it is the same person they get both consecutively. There is no legal problem here. If this described a lesbian relationship where one bears the child and the other gets the baby bonding and one gets the short term disability, this is not a legal problem. It happens today with no changing of labels.
This is just the same old, same old, attacks on organized religion.
>Again the right would rather fight some made up “woke-ism”. Fighting windmills.
Go through the positives in eliminating the terms mother, father, wife and husband, for example. You support it, so explain it. Where or in what way did those terms become scientifically anachronistic? You can say (incorrectly, but whatever) that a new term is needed to include .00003% of the population, but I want to hear you form a supporting argument for deleting the current terms. Go on.
>but I want to hear you form a supporting argument for deleting the current terms
Oh man, T, you’re going to make jc “quit” us again.
He wants to come here and troll, then great, don’t come back. If he wants to pretend he is intelligent he either explains himself or continues to look foolish. I am not sure if he EVER answered an actual question I have put to him on a post. It is always some sort of segue or going off on new tangents and leaving the questions totally untouched upon or as common, just ignored. That is okay too as it shows any other readers what is wrong with most liberal arguments or that the arguments have no foundation in explainable truth. I know my sister has read these so it is fun for me. I want to hear him say that he has told his child (children?) to never call his Mommy by that name ever again as the liberal way will be to put an end to those monikers. They and he now address Mom as inseminated one or spousey or something lib approved. You know, another little story.
Phony also wants Father changed to “Natural Parent”
Ruminations of a liberal:
‘I am not a rapist, I am a Natural parent!’
And he isn’t because he raped someone in Madison, was never officially charged much less convicted, and he walked away from his signature bond. The least he could do is vote Democrat.
A useful observation from Z-Man on twits like JonnyV:
One of the many failings of conservatism was the insistence that with just the right argument using just the right data points, the people they called the left would throw down their weapons and embrace them as brothers. At the core of what later became known as civic nationalism was the assertion that all political actors are looking for objective truth and therefore would respond to it. The reason for political disputes was the failure to flesh out the facts.
Politics is about morality, not facts. It is also about power, specifically the power to impose your moral vision on the rest.
This is why JV never, ever, responds to a factual refutation of his inane accusations. Facts cannot exist in his world–or his world will collapse and he will lose his “moral superiority” and the power of his betters.
I explained why I support them. They are scientifically more accurate. And they better represent the modern environment in which we live.
Other than the fact that it hurts your precious feelings and some people don’t want to acknowledge that things like gay marriage exist, why NOT change them. What actual harm does changing them do? Does anyone LOSE individual rights? Fighting the change is literally fighting against other people’s rights.
How are changing these terms an “attack” on religion? Church and state are separate. Mother, father, husband, wife are not religious terms in the eye of the law. Updating these to things like spouse adds clarity and opens additional rights.
Dad29, you freaking believe in a made up sky daddy. If you put your hands together and wish hard enough he may grant your wish. Don’t come at me about facts.
Jason, I never quit. Just stepped back. Deleted the passwords from my laptop. I can only post from my phone. And that is a shite experience, so I post less.
Oh, and these weren’t all encompassing changes. This is primarily in the IVF area and laws involving same sex marriage.
I want my laws as clear as possible to avoid having judicial interpretations. And if this can do that, great.
Maybe if you wish to your sky-genie enough he will get rid of them.
I am a Natural parent!
As IVF and surrogacy is not natural, what would Phony have us call the former “father”?
The Inseminator?
(ahll be bach)
Updating these to things like spouse adds clarity
Wife, Husband, Mother, Father are precise.
Spouse is generic.
MJM. Spouse may not be more specific, but it better identifies the possibilities that could happen, and that would clarify things in a court of law. Again 2 moms or two dads, etc. As much as some want that reality to go away, it is here and legal. And we should identify and accommodate that in our laws.
Fighting the change is literally fighting against other people’s rights.
There is never a “right” to do wrong.
But your limited intellect–which denies God’s existence–will not comprehend that dictum. Eventually, your self-worship will pay a dividend; I pray that you smell the coffee before it is too late.
Did you hear the whoosh as you wrote those last comments? Talk about missing the mark. I asked why you supported removing the current monikers, not why you support adding some. And why do you need a differentiator between actual mother and the other mother? If spouse is now there you can use that for any of the 4 choices you describe, a first and second mother, and a first and second father. Why do you need a natural parent and inseminated person choice in the first place? Spouse describes any of them and no one outside the union. Why would you add a uni-sex term when you (supposedly) are adding these new terms for extra special modern legal purposes? In a 2 mom divorce does the inseminated person have more legal standing than the spouse?
Spouse for anyone doesn’t describe a specific person at all. Spouse muddies the legal waters if you are also adding terms describing the natural parents. This weaponizes the law against those unisex unions that may have provided neither the sperm nor the womb. Spouse is a really stupid thing to add unless you just use spouse with no other distinctions (which would also fit the official Dem position). Spouse does not specifically refer to any of those 4 UNION choices you described above. Spouse could be used to refer to just the specific people in the union, but how does that work for rape victims? The rapist now must be legally used for the rapist on the birth certificate as ‘natural parent’? Does he get 8 weeks from jail for baby bonding on the tax payer dime? I guess neither side is on the rape victim’s side.
Natural parent would be used for sperm donor in a 2 mom situation, but supposedly the rights we are concerned about are the same sex couple. Could their be an inseminated person a natural parent AND the 2 spouses? (Answer yes) You are actually adding legal options to the inseminated person and natural father to take the baby away from same sex parents. A modernization would take the natural parent out of the equation entirely. A willing sperm donor or surrogate mother should not be named in any of the legalese involved in having the children in the first place. It would make it that much harder to take a child away from the adoptive parent(s). Changing it all to ‘spouse’ is color blind and works with the Dem platform. Then only the two in the union have legal standing, no one else. But then adding even more specific separate terms is pure nonsense and actually goes against the Dem platform.
A modernization of the law should take away as many loopholes for blocking taking the baby away from the agreed upon parents whether natural or adoptive in any combination. These Ever terms are not meant to help the spouses, they would be helping the natural mother or father from taking the baby away from adopted couples of any combination. If it is not for any legal clarification value there must be a different purpose for the law.
When someone you trust tells you that the proper belief is to not see racial traits or gender so there is no discrimination, but their actions are always classing people by trait and gender as part of their political agenda, there is a dissonance. How do all the actions of separating people by race, gender and many other things promote a non-discriminating platform goal considering that no one discriminated against is happy about it? What Dem goal does separating, classifying and discriminating for and against certain members of the American people support?
Correction
>These Ever terms are not meant to help the spouses, they would be helping the natural mother or father from taking the baby away from adopted couples of any combination.
These Ever terms are not meant to help the spouses, they would be helping the natural mother or father IN taking the baby away from adopted couples of any combination.