If someone is raped and they have a child because of it the rapist should have NO RIGHTS over the child. The person didn't asked to be raped or agree to have sex and didn't intend to have a child and by allowing the rapist to have any parental right over a child just gives them power over their victim. Which is what a rapist wants, power over someone else.
To direct the Attorney General to make grants to States that have in place laws that terminate the parental rights of men who father children through rape.
Summary: 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 3 most recent awards a state received under the STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program and the Sexual Assault Services Program; and (2) a 1-year term, subject to renewal for not more than 3 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. More: beta.congress.gov.
I oppose this bill simply because this isn't a federal issue. It should be straightforward in each state to not allow custody to a rapist, just like murder and rape are state-level, not federal, offenses.
Besides, the federal government has no money to give out anyways. They're more broke than a sailor after shore-leave.
I don't think rapists should have parental rights, but proving rape is often problematic. We often think of rape the way it's portrayed on t.v.: a stranger jumping an unsuspecting woman as she walks home in the dark, or who breaks into her home while she is sleeping. But 50% of rapes are committed by someone the woman knows. Sometimes it's a boyfriend who, when they are making out, doesn't stop when the woman says no. A jury is then left to decide between the story the woman gives versus the story the man gives. Some rapists have offered the argument that the woman's vaginal bruising is due to the fact that "she likes it rough." In one case, a lawyer argued that the bruising could have occurred from having a number of sexual partners within two or three days' time.
Because of some of these he said/she said cases, and instances where rape victims are not taken seriously when they do report crimes, and because many women don't want to relive their experience through court testimony and police reports, many rapes go unreported. So it's a nice concept, but realistically, it won't solve the problem for many rape victims unless you eliminate due process for accused rapists, which isn't fair either.
Given the nature of the situation, I almost think the parental rights of a father should have to be earned. If you impregnate someone, you have a duty to financially support that child, but if you walk away (or run away!) from the child's mother when you find out she's pregnant, and leave her with the bills and the care and raising of that child, and some years later decide you want to be a part of that child's life, your rights should be considered as abandoned right along with the responsibilities you shirked.