Alabama urgently needs to pass The Rape Survivor Child Custody Act, to terminate the parental rights of rapists and to suspend any custody or visitation.  Last week, a rape survivor mom from our network, J.C., published her story in our Save The 1 blog, "From Age 13, My Uncle Raped and Impregnated Me, But The Judge Said It's Irrelevant."  In her custody case for her two surviving children conceived in rape-incest, DeKalb County, Alabama Judge Steven Whitmire told her that their conception was irrelevant, and granted her rapist uncle visits over Christmas.  Determined to protect her children, she's sought protection from the County Sheriff's office, imploring them to file charges against him for the years of rape.

All four of her children were conceived in rape-incest -- the first two were conceived when she was under "the age of consent" in Alabama.  J.C. miscarried her first child, and her third child died at 2-1/2 years old, due to a serious genetic disorder -- Krabbe Disease -- which was the result of the genetics involved in being too closely related.  These children died because of her uncle's actions.  In Alabama, incest is a Class C felony and statutory rape with a victim under the age of 16 is 2nd degree rape -- a Class B felony.  There is no statute of limitation for rape in Alabama, so he can be prosecuted for the rape and incest.  Yet, the judge didn't see his being a child molester as relevant to parenting.

A Fox News article from Apr. 2017 highlights the fact that Alabama is only 1 of 7 states (joining Mississippi, Minnesote, North Dakota, Wyoming and New Mexico, which has NO law providing for the termination of parental rights of rapists: In 7 US states, rape victims can be legally forced to share custody of their children with their rapist fathers

So exactly what needs to be done in Alabama?  Under current law, Alabama Code - Section 26-18-7, there are 8 subsections listing grounds for termination of parental rights.  At the outset, the standard of judicial review is set forth:  "If the court finds from clear and convincing evidence, competent, material, and relevant in nature. . . ."

For Alabama, all that's needed is a 9th subsection stating:

(9)  That the parent raped the other parent and the minor child was conceived as a result of the rape.

Furthermore, Alabama and other states should follow Michigan's example and also provide protection in the code on custody and visitation to authorize a judge to suspend those rights. Typically, this is how the issue of a rapist seeking parental rights first comes up -- on a paternity/child support case or other family law matter.  These mothers like J.C. need immediate relief and should not have to file an actual termination of parental rights case in order to be immediately protected by the court in a family law matter.

Yes, there may be other language under current law which a judge may decide to employ in order to do what's right and suspend or terminate parental rights, but the law should be explicit so that every judge understands what is expected of them, and that the public will not tolerate awarding parental rights to rapists.

In Michigan, with the law passed the way it was, my client in the recent Sanilac County case of national attention was able to be protected.  My client's rapist molested her when she was 12 and he was 19, but during her pregnancy, he had only been convicted of "attempted" criminal sexual conduct due to a plea deal, and then years later, Judge Gregory Ross awarded him joint legal custody and parenting time without a hearing, by simply signing an order presented to him by the Prosecutor's office in a paternity case, without my client's consent.  But the judge reversed himself because of the law passed in Michigan in 2016. The Michigan case is one with a happier ending, demonstrating the importance of getting this legislation passed in every state.

Here is detailed information on the Michigan law from Right to Life of Michigan, who made this project a priority in it's legislative agenda:

 https://www.rtl.org/legislation/PendingLegislation/RapeSurvivorChildCustody.html  Because of my experience in working with so many rape victim mothers who have fought their rapist over custody and visitation issues, I emphasized the need for authorizing judges in family law matters to be able to suspend these rights upon a finding by "clear and convincing evidence" that the child was conceived in rape.  One of these Michigan companion bills passed in 2016 addresses custody and the other addresses parenting time.

Florida passed this law unanimously a few year ago, which was the impetus to Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz co-sponsoring with Sen. Sherrod Brown the Federal Bill, The Rape Survivor Child Custody Act, signed by Pres. Obama in 2015. H.R.1257 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Rape Survivor Child Custody Act 

The law gives an incentive to states which pass legislation with the necessary language, as follows: 

"Directs the Attorney General to make grants to states that have in place a law that allows the mother of any child that was conceived through rape to seek court-ordered termination of the parental rights of her rapist with regard to that child, which the court shall grant upon clear and convincing evidence of rape.

"Limits such a grant to: (1) an amount that is not greater than 10% of the average of the total funding of the three most recent awards a state received under the STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program and the Sexual Assault Services Program; and (2) a one-year term, subject to renewal for not more than three additional years.

"Requires a state that receives such a grant to use: (1) 25% of grant funds for permissible uses under the STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program, and (2) 75% of funds for permissible uses under the Sexual Assault Services Program."

Please note the Federal law says "shall grant," not "may grant," so if the court determines the child was conceived in rape, then terminating parental rights is not discretionary.  The Federal law is gender-specific -- "a law that allows the mother. . .", but all of the states where I've worked on this have passed gender-neutral bills because men get raped too -- particular cases of statutory rape.  In fact, I'm currently working with a father in Iowa who actually got a rape conviction, but the judge in the custody case said he doesn't believe in statutory rape and that for a 15 year old boy, having a naked woman in his bed was "manna from Heaven."  More to come on that story. . . .
In the Federal law, Congress made the following findings:  

into not prosecuting rape, or otherwise harass, intimidate, or manipulate them.

Last year, I helped get this law introduced and passed in Iowa, Georgia, Michigan, and Indiana, and I was able to assist or consult in many other states.  I also got legislators in Brazil and in Malta to initiate this legislation, and whenever I speak in a nation's Parliament, I always try to get legislators to sponsor this bill.  It's not just an issue in the U.S., but globally of course.

A bill to terminate the parental rights of rapists is being reintroduced in Maryland this coming month.  Some states like Ohio got it wrong by requiring a rape conviction, when it's estimated that only 1% of rape victims ever see their rapist convicted as charged.  As Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court found, the proper standard in termination of parental rights cases is "clear and convincing evidence."

But we need more advocates for this law.  Please see if your state requires a rape conviction or if it uses the "clear and convincing evidence" standard.  And if you live in one of the seven states that has no law -- contact your legislator with this information and advocate to get this passed!  I've reached out to a handful of legislators in Alabama, but ideally, ever single one should be contacted.

If you have progress and a bill sponsor, please let me know!  I can certainly arrange for rape victim mothers to testify.  With my experience as a family law attorney, having litigated these cases myself or working on them with others, I can offer a lot of insight for legislators who may have questions.  

In addition, we desperately need a network of attorneys nationwide who also would be willing to handle these cases pro bono.  Right now, the mother in DeKalb County, Alabama is in need of a pro bono lawyer, as well as the father in Iowa.  Please contact me if you are able to assist now or in the future.

As someone conceived in rape myself, I can tell you that I would not have wanted the rapist to be anywhere near me growing up!  Our global network of rape survivor mothers and those conceived in rape is now nearly 550 strong, and we've seen this issue come up quite a bit.  These mothers and their children deserve to be protected.  Won't you help us?  

BIO:  Rebecca Kiessling is an international pro-life speaker, blogger and attorney, advocating for the rights of rape victim mothers and their children.  She's the founder and president of Save The 1, and co-founder of Hope After Rape Conception.

Petulant or Vigilant? The Battle For No Exceptions – By Jim Sable

At Save The 1, we experienced other successes, as our network of individuals representing one of the so-called “hard cases” expanded into the hundreds.  We helped start our affiliate group Save The 1 - Carry To Birth.  We launched our international outreach with the Save The 1 Spanish and Portuguese divisions: Salvar El 1 and Salva O 1.  We witnessed our message spreading and the topic of the rape exception discussed more frequently.  We also observed, and in some cases directly influenced, the introduction and passage of many State abortion regulating laws that did not contain the usual “exceptions”.  We assisted worldwide to keep the rape exception out of important pro-life laws.

But, along with those positive 2015 results, as we at Save The 1 represent and defend the lives of the so-called “hard cases” of the abortion debate, we continue to witness and experience many verbal and written challenges to the right to life of the “exceptions”, from individuals and groups on both sides of the debate.  Each challenge is a slap in the face, and we turn the other cheek while we continue to defend our lives and the lives of those similarly situated.  We have turned the other cheek so often that our heads are spinning.  It is not difficult to understand the disrespect from the abortion supporters, but when we battle with the pro-life community, it is particularly perplexing and exasperating.

A recent example of this occurred as 2015 was winding down and the 2016 Presidential campaign was gaining momentum.  The pro-life community reacted in unison to denounce a statement made by self-proclaimed pro-life Presidential candidate Jeb Bush.  Mr. Bush answered a question about whether he would have ended the life of the infant Hitler.  Jeb Bush answered, “Hell yeah I would!”.  One well known and influential pro-life blogger railed against Bush in a Facebook post in November, chiding Bush by unequivocally stating that the pro-life community cannot abandon “Principles” and make “Pragmatic Compromises”.  Bush’s pragmatic compromise about Hitler is not pro-life.  “Once we compromise the principle, we can’t with a straight face appeal to it anymore,” the blogger wrote.  (This is a blogger who had previously advocated for laws containing exceptions, defending compromise.)

Save The 1 was encouraged by the post that cited “principles” written by someone who has shown a willingness to compromise on pro-life laws.  We reached out to see if the blogger’s idea of principles still included an acceptance of the exceptions.  Surely, one who would not condone killing the infant/preborn Hitler would also now be standing by principle and rejecting exceptions, or so we hoped, and communicated that hope in our response to the post.  Unfortunately, our hopes were unfounded.  Instead of a reassuring affirmation of our right to life, we were told that this blogger was “. . . weary of the fallacy of the 1% argument”, (whatever that means).  We were also called “petulant” (3 times) for our no exceptions position and for expressing a challenge to the compromising ideology.  So, Save The 1 is apparently petulant for defending all life, but a blogger who responds to a challenge, not by engaging in respectful debate and Q & A on the points, but instead by name calling and misstating another’s views, is somehow virtuous.  We, evidently, are not allowed to defend our position, are not allowed to show any passion about our cause lest we be labeled as petulant.  Are we to understand this to mean: “Spare the baby Hitler – sacrifice the baby from rape”?

The blogger’s single defense is to claim that the blog has never stated that the rape exception is an acceptable compromise.  But, how do you separate an approval of exceptions in law from an approval of exceptions in general?  Is it logical to state that you are against the rape exception or that you don’t consider the rape exception an acceptable compromise and then promote and condone the exceptions in law?  Can you hold yourself out as “principled” when you accept any compromise?

The promotion of exceptions is troubling enough.  But there is also a concurrent promotion of and symbiotic relationship with compromising politicians.  The pro-life community has allowed politicians to define what it means to be pro-life.  Don’t the elected officials work for us?  This has been much more of a problem at the Federal level than the State level.  Save The 1 has observed much more success among the states in passing principled laws without exceptions.

This blogger gave us the erroneous example of rejecting hostage releases one at a time until hostage holders agree to release 100% as being analogous to a “no exceptions” requirement for a pro-life law.  This hostage scenario is not analogous to a no exceptions legal philosophy because a no exceptions philosophy would accept ALL hostages, one at a time or all at once, depending on the requirements of the hostage takers (abortion regulations).  A law with exceptions actually refuses some hostages (babies’ lives).  Here’s how: The hostage negotiating team (pro-life community) takes (protects) every life the hostage holders (abortion regulations) are willing to spare, (every life a law is designed to protect), and then, the negotiating team sends those now saved hostages who are rape conceived BACK to the hostage holders, (removes the legal protection for some by adding a rape exception to the law).  To put it simply, (and, seemingly, obviously), a law with exceptions excludes some lives, a no exceptions law does not.

We were accused of being responsible, at least partly, for the continued slaughter of 99% of babies because we defend the last  1%.  We were told, (and we have heard this many times), we are standing in the way of laws that would save 99% of babies tomorrow because we will not agree to the exceptions.  What we do object to is any group or individual who touts a hypothetical law, with imaginary results, who then claims a superior moral authority over others.  Our proposal could be considered hypothetical, but we have the historical record of Roe v. Wade to show that the rape exception is unworkable in practice.  It is impossible to know how many lives would be saved by an abortion ban with a rape exception, but it is certainly not the outrageous 99% claimed by this blogger.  A rape exception creates a huge, unenforceable loophole, and also exposes the real possibility of additional exceptions, which will be advanced and defended as just as valid, merely a court decision away from implementation, as the rape exception is given the force of law by OUR side.  The perpetually-promoted rape exception keeps abortion legal forever.

This leads to a broader issue and other questions.  We at Save The 1 are told that laws with exceptions need to be passed because they contribute to the “greater good” of ending abortion.  Who is the caretaker of the “greater good”?  Who gets to decide how we get there, when we will know we are there, and how long it should take to get there?  As compromising organizations and individuals advance an exceptions strategy that has almost no chance of ever ending legalized abortion, how is that promoting the greater good?  If the rape exception keeps abortion legal forever, allowing for a renewed expansion of abortion rights after a ban with exceptions somehow is passed, how is the long term greater good achieved?

There have been promises for decades that the exceptions strategy will change and the laws passed with exceptions will be fixed.  Neither has happened.  Case in point: the current Planned Parenthood defunding bill passed by the House and Senate has a rape exception.  So, we are handing the enforcement procedure of the rape exception to an organization that has already demonstrated that they do not comply with rape reporting requirements.  Is this an effective strategy?  Let’s make a commitment to change this strategy.  Now.  If not now, when?

From our standpoint, the blogger broke at least 2 tenets of debate, (1) - attacking us personally and, (2) - begging the question by assuming something as fact without any defending evidence.  These are rules that this blogger claims to uphold (but doesn’t) and demands that others do as well.  Here is another example of inconsistency we see often from some compromising pro-life individuals, from those in leadership positions on down.  They use a recommended line of reasoning when discussing abortion with those who are “personally pro-life” but supportive of laws allowing the “choice” of abortion by pointing out that the other person, despite his or her personal disapproval of abortion, is actually supporting abortion, the horrible act of killing babies that they claim to abhor, by supporting the legality of killing babies.  The “personal pro-lifers” are being inconsistent.  In other words, if you support the law, you support the act, despite what you claim are your own personal views.  How is accepting the exceptions in law any different?  It is puzzling that someone who is pro-life and compromises on the exceptions cannot seem to grasp that they are also displaying the same inconsistency.  Again, if you accept the law, you accept the act.

So what is it, actually, that is so distressing about our message to the people who accept exceptions in law?  Are they sincere and accurate when they say we are an impediment to pro-life success?  In their eyes we are a problem to deal with, a nuisance, a thorn in their side.  Or are they concealing something they do not want to admit?  Are we actually a challenge to their conscience?  Has the business of being pro-life clouded the purity of the message and distracted some away from fighting for the principle of “Every Life Matters”?  What percentage would we have to be for the lives of the “hard cases” to matter enough to be defended by everyone at every opportunity and to make legal exceptions to pro-life laws a thing of the past?  Apparently 1% is not enough.