Pending Law Requires Marriage As Legal Condition Of Motherhood

[KittyWampus]

The Crime of "Unauthorized Reproduction"

New law will require marriage as a legal condition of motherhood
By Laura McPhee (writer on Nuvo.net out of Indiana)

Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."

According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother through assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, and egg donation, must first file for a "petition for parentage" in their local county probate court.

Only women who are married will be considered for the "gestational certificate" that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the pregnancy. Further, the "gestational certificate" will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening
process currently required by law of adoptive parents.

As it the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent "who knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction procedure" without court approval, "commits unauthorized reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor." The criminal charges will be the same for physicians who commit "unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction."

The change in Indiana law to require marriage as a condition for motherhood and criminalizing "unauthorized reproduction" was introduced at a summer meeting of the Indiana General Assembly's Health Finance Commission on September 29 and a final version of the bill will come up for a vote at the next meeting at the end of this month.

Republican Senator Patricia Miller is both the Health Finance Commission Chair and the sponsor of the bill. She believes the new law will protect children in the state of Indiana and make parenting laws more explicit.

According to Sen. Miller, the laws prohibiting surrogacy in the state of Indiana are currently too vague and unenforceable, and that is the purpose of the new legislation.

"But it's not just surrogacy," Miller told NUVO. " The law is vague on all types of extraordinary types of infertility treatment, and we wanted to address that as well."

"Ordinary treatment would be the mother's egg and the father's sperm. But now there are a lot of extraordinary thing s that raise issues of who has legal rights as parents," she explained when asked what she considers "extraordinary" infertility treatment.

Sen. Miller believes the requirement of marriage for parenting is for the benefit of the children that result from infertility treatments.

"We did want to address the issue of whether or not the law should allow single people to be parents. Studies have shown that a child raised by both parents - a mother and a father - do better. So, we do want to have laws that protect the children," she explained.

When asked specifically if she believes marriage should be a requirement for motherhood, and if that is part of the bill's intention, Sen. Miller responded, "Yes. Yes, I do."

A draft of the legislation is available on the Health Finance Commission website

http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/prelim/HFCO04.pdf

next meeting of the Health Finance Commission will be held at the Statehouse on October 20, 2005 at 10 am in Senate Chambers and is open to the public.

To express your support or opposition of legislation making "unauthorized reproduction" a criminal act, contact members of the Health Finance Commission by telephone or email:
Sen. Patricia Miller ® 232-9489
Sen. Gregory Server ® 232-9490
Sen. Gary Dillon ® 232-9808
Sen. Beverly Gard ® 232-9493
Sen. Ryan Mishler ® 233-0930
Sen. Connie Lawson ® 232-9984
Sen. Marvin Riegsecker ® 232-9488
Sen. Billie Breaux (D) 232-9849
Sen. Vi Simpson (D) 232-9849
Sen. Connie Sipes (D) 232-9526
Sen. Timothy Skinner (D) 232-9523
Rep. Vaneta Becker ® 232-9769
Rep. Robert Behning ® 232-9981
Rep. Timothy Brown ® 234-3825
Rep.Mary Kay Budak® 232-9641
Rep. Da vid Frizzell ® 232-9981
Rep. Donald Lehe ® 232-9648
Rep. Richard Dodge ® 232-9729
Rep. Charlie Brown (D) 232-9676
Rep. David Orentlicher (D) 232-9991
Rep. Craig Fry (D) 232-9994 .
Rep. Carolene Mays (D) 232-0243
Rep. Scott Reske (D) 232-9695

[niyad]

1. this is a joke, right?

[noiretextatique]

5. unfortunately, it's not a joke

they are just finally uncloaking.

[KittyWampus]

7. No, the link to Indiana govt. shows this to be true.

[LisaM]

50. What's to stop women from bypassing the clinic and paying men directly

for their sperm? Because that is what would happen, and all the quality control safeguards against disease, etc. would vanish.

[LynzM]

2. Please, be kidding?

Oh, wait. I used to live in Indiana. They're not kidding. Yikes.

[Deep13]

3. Brought to you by your limited government party.

:eyes:

Sorry, I have outrage fatigue and can't come up with anything more than that.

[KittyWampus]

9. Oddly, that was my reaction as well. Just another "Outrage O'the Day"

[Lerkfish]

4. as scary as this is, your headline is misleading, it is NOT a law yet.

I hope it never becomes one.
But you should be clear.

[KittyWampus]

11. changed it to read pending

[Lerkfish]

13. thanks, twas no reflection on your post otherwise, I hope you know.

I am also highly concerned about this issue.
and it should be fought, tooth and nail.

[Deep13]

17. Sure, but the fact that any American legislator is willing to pursue it

is pretty astonishing. The right to life propaganda has desensitized people to extremist proposals to such a degree that many see nothing wrong with licensing a woman's womb.

[Lerkfish]

20. Agreed. my point was only that its easier to fight NOW than later IF

it passes.
Saying it was already a law is astonishing, but knowing it has not yet passed is galvanizing.

[KittyWampus]

23. Good example of govt. meddling in private affairs. This & Mrs. Schiavo's

long drawn death might help people see what's behind the mask.

[LisaM]

6. So the men can just get paid all day long to donate sperm....

but the recipients have a burden or proof or they will be considered criminal. Is there any chance this will pass?

[damntexdem]

8. If someone is charged with violating this law, will the case ...

be known as 'SurroGate'?

Nothing shows the desireability of abortion more than the fact that some of these privacy-invading politicians escaped its being performed.

[sandnsea]

10. holy fucking shit

This is off the charts. Just off the charts. Who could have dreamed this kind of insanity would be happening in this country. And who could have dreamed that almost NO ONE would pay attention to it. I'm truly flabbergasted.

[MadHound]

12. Geez, sounds like somebody is really wanting the Handmaid's Tale

To become reality, and this is but the first step.

Hopefully this won't go through, and if it does become law, it gets thrown out by the courts.

[KittyWampus]

14. this is to ensure gay couples can't use infertility clinics to have kids

women will just have to use a turkey baster.

[MadHound]

29. Oh you're probably correct in that this is their primary goal.

However this law does indeed extend the state's control over a woman's reproductive organs.

[jackstraw45]

15. Range of emotions brought on by this news....

:banghead::mad: :puke: :banghead: :eyes: :crazy: :banghead: :wow: :grr: :banghead:

[Old and In the Way]

16. So, you can be not married and have kids as long as you have

sexual intercourse, right? This law makes a lot of sense. :eyes:

[Deep13]

22. Right, because sex is something done TO women BY men.

Men have the power there by their thinking so it is not her 'fault.' Seeking artificial means gives women the power and the gut feeling of conservatives is that violates the natural order of things.

[bloom]

36. Along the same lines - it's about everyone following their religion,

their defined social/morality code, or suffering their consequences.

It's not enough to ban gay marriage - they have to make sure that any possible alternative lifestyle is also restricted.

[rocktivity]

32. DING DING DING! Old and In the Way, you're our grand prize winner!

So, you can be not married and have kids as long as you have sexual intercourse, right?
Right--which is why "authorized reproduction" as unconsitutional as it is discriminatory--no equal protection under the law.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Blue_In_AK]

18. My 33-year-old daughter

who was conceived and born out of wedlock would probably roll on the floor laughing if somebody tried to tell her that I wasn't legally her mother. This is one of the most ridiculous ideas they've come up with yet. Right-wingers never cease to amaze me.

[meisje]

19. It's not even pending, it's drafted, it's proposed, but not anywhere near

a law

[Occulus]

52. That it would be even considered is chilling in the first place. n/t

[MissB]

21. What I find fascinating is that the "gestational certificate"

"will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents."

Aside from the fact that this whole attempt to legislate who can get pregnant is horrifying, I just cannot imagine married couples holding off on getting pregnant until they get some stupid gestational certificate. :eyes:

[Deep13]

25. The invitro clinic would enforce it.

Getting knocked up without a license would still be allowed.

[bloom]

38. Married parents would have to go through "adoption proceedings..."

"A doctor cannot begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child being born until the intended parents have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill. The assessment is similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child-placing agency in Indiana.

The required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans and criminal history checks. Description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents also is required, including participation in faith-based or church activities."

http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2005/10/05/news.new.1128485445.sto

[The Wielding Truth]

37. I wonder if only Christan Fundies will Qualify for new Certificate?

This is another controlling move by right leaning republican party. How can we let this crazy Religious Zealots have control of anything?

[noiretextatique]

24. it's for the children, according to the sponsor

exactly how would this law "protect children?" "studies have shown..."
:puke:

[Deep13]

28. No, it's for the control freaks.

pretty sad

[noiretextatique]

30. it's insane, actually

i am sure there are many more pressing issues these idiots should be focusing on.

[javadu]

26. We Need Better Links (n/m)

n/m

[KittyWampus]

33. fixed & here it is again.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/prelim/HFCO04.pdf

[philosophie_en_rose]

27. Only women are fined?

What are they getting pregnant with -- magic sperm spun from the clouds?

On top of the totality of this stupid bill, it leaves out half of the alleged criminals. :eyes:

Luckily this misogyny is likely to be a bill to pander to the conservative right. Fat chance it would be deemed constitutional.

[Deep13]

31. The other half are anonymous donors.

Of course not all donors ARE anonymous. The whole thing is el nutso. Is there an epidemic of unwed, artificially inseminated mothers? It's a nonsolution to a nonproblem.

[philosophie_en_rose]

48. But isn't that like hit and run?

;) Wouldn't they have to check to ensure that their genetic materials are only shared with governmentally approved people???

I'm not advocating for that, a wrong law for women is a wrong law for men. However, I'm having trouble understanding the alleged reasoning.

[Deep13]

55. It only makes sense...

...if you run head first into a brick wall before considering it.

[noiretextatique]

34. women...and doctors

who perform "unauthorized" in vitro fertilizations. both would be crinimalized...a class B misdemeanor.

[triguy46]

54. Just wait, Sen. Tom Coburn (R) OK...

will probably suggest executing someone, (anyone), who violates this statute. Right after he has a crying jag over the loss of civility and respect in the Senate and the country...

[bloom]

35. "would prevent gays, lesbians (& singles) from using scientific methods.."

http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2005/10/05/news.new.1128485445.sto

"According to the Associated Press, the bill defines assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.

It then requires "intended parents" to be married to each other and says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

A doctor cannot begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child being born until the intended parents have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill. The assessment is similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child-placing agency in Indiana.

The required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans and criminal history checks. Description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents also is required, including participation in faith-based or church activities.
<snip>

The bill does not apply to assisted reproduction in which the child is the genetic child of both of the intended parents - for example, the sperm is from the father and the egg is from the mother, the AP said. But married couples that need one or the other would still have to go through an assessment process and establish parentage in a court.
<snip>

She (Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis) acknowledged such a law would bar single people from using methods other than sexual intercourse but said "all the studies indicate the best environment for a child is to have a two-parent family - a mother and a father."

[bloom]

39. Maybe they want to drive all the liberals out of Indiana.

I guess that could be the goal.

So people would go to another state to have it done - and while they were at it - would probably decide that Indiana is too nutso to live in anyway.

[canadianbeaver]

40. This sure seems like a dream to me.......

WTF???!!!!!!

Wake up everybody...where is the outrage....am I in some crazy novel?...America is becoming a farse!!!! The world is watching and everyday it just gets worse and worse...kind of like a sore that won't heal!!

This shit has got to stop....

[FlaGranny]

41. Weird, weird, weird.

If this becomes law, then it would make just as much sense to require couples who want children the old fashioned way to apply for a permit also. After all, that would protect children. Everyone knows that natural parents many times are not good parents.

Penalty - sterilize all unauthorized reproducers.

:sarcasm:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. Some legislators obviously have too much time on their hands

:grr:

[txaslftist]

43. This is aimed at Gay Couples.

To prevent a partner from getting artificially inseminated.

They could give a shit about surrogacy.

[KittyWampus]

44. that's what popped out at me. Amazing what lengths they'll go to in their

hate. what a waster of energy.

[txaslftist]

45. What amazes me is the duplicity...

..the bullshit rationale about surrogacy. If it's aimed at gay couples, just say so. Indianerans will probably vote for it anyway.

They're so used to having their little "secret agenda" that they lie when the truth would serve just as well.

Stupid little pukes.

[bloom]

46. It wouldn't surprise me

to see them drop the part about screening already married couples (who require artificial insemination).

Because too many people would see that as affecting themselves or others like them.

OR maybe I'm wrong and they will go through with the idea that it is someones job to see that parents have the proper job and church-going behavior. :argh:

[txaslftist]

51. You know, under the Warren Court I'd have said this was for sure...

...unconstitutional. The scary thing is that now I'm not sure.

[McCamy Taylor]

47. Gonna cost the state $$$ to defend in federal court and state will lose.

This law will never get enforced even once. The ACLU will get an injunction the minute it goes on the books. Indeed, stuff like this is what the ACLU lives for. These laws are what the ACLU dreams about. They make everyone say "Arent we glad that we have an ACLU to exterminate stupid laws like these. Let's give a check to the ACLU."

Indiana is wasting tax payers money. If anyone seriously wants to challenge this piece of silliness, I suggest pointing out to voters that this is what is going to happen. Midwesterners have a rep for being common sense people, and I am sure that they dont like flushing money down a toilet.

[KittyWampus]

49. Indiana residents might be the exception to the common sense clause.

those who have common sense seem to move out of there asap.

[triguy46]

53. Why stop at assisted pregnancy?

Why don't they require proof of marriage for intercourse? The passionate couple would call the legislators prior to doing the dirty, and fax over the appropriate form, notarized and witnessed, and recieve back the key to the highway, so to speak. Shades of Brave New World...

Certainly heartwarming to see so many Dems signed onto this...Guess their reelection must be coming up...

[TankLV]

56. I know a lot of people who shouldn't have children.

But I'm positive that I am not thinking of the same people these repukes are!

[Qibing Zero]

57. We heil from Bizzaro America.

Day after day, I just don't know what to think anymore. Wow.