2 ms·
That’s been shared a lot on social media but those posts tend to leave out the context that this was only in technical language around IVF, not a broad change,
by acdha 2y ago
That’s been shared a lot on social media but those posts tend to leave out the context that this was only in technical language around IVF, not a broad change, and that it was intended to resolve confusion around what “mother” means in the context of what goes on a birth certificate in the case where a same-sex couple means the child has two mothers.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2025/02/28/wisconsin-bill-replacing-mother-fact-check/80538018007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2025/02/28/wis...
- pegasus 2y agoThanks for clearing that up, it really changes the story for me. This actually came up as only 4% reported by the left in Ground News' weekly Blindspot Report [1][2]. It only lists one left-leaning source, also from USA Today [3], but not the one you linked, one critical of the measure. I guess Ground News really didn't help here in guarding against bias. That's pretty disappointing. [1] https://ground.news/newsletters/blindspot-report/Feb-25-2025 https://ground.news/newsletters/blindspot-report/Feb-25-2025 [2] https://ground.news/article/ec380800-9bf0-4cb4-a894-3fe0c001a337 https://ground.news/article/ec380800-9bf0-4cb4-a894-3fe0c001... [3] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/02/28/inseminated-person-wisconsin-evers/80491973007/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/02/28/i...