not married? NO BABIES FOR YOU.

[glowbelly]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/3/213554/300

ALERT: Unauthorized Reproduction bill
by IndianaGreen
Mon Oct 3rd, 2005 at 18:35:54 PDT
We just got a heads up about an upcoming article in the Indianapolis magazine NUVO from the author of the as yet unpublished article.

A draft of the legislation which, among other things, bars unmarried people from having children by articifial means is here:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/interi...lim/HFCO04.pdf

The Crime of "Unauthorized Reproduction"
New law will require marriage as a legal condition of motherhood

By Laura McPhee

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 throu gh 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.

IndianaGreen's diary :: ::
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/...

The next meeting of the Health Finance Commission will be held a t
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 (area code 317):

Sen. Patricia Miller (R) 232-9489 s32@...
Sen. Gregory Server (R) 232-9490 s50@...
Sen. Gary Dillon (R) 232-9808 s17@...
Sen. Beverly Gard (R) 232-9493 s28@...
Sen. Ryan Mishler (R) 233-0930 s9@...
Sen. Connie Lawson (R) 232-9984 s24@...
Sen. Marvin Riegsecker (R) 232-9488 s12@...
Sen. Billie Breaux (D) 232-9849 s34@...
Sen. Vi Simpson (D) 232-9849 s40@...
Sen. Connie Sipes (D) 232-9526 s46@...
Sen. Timothy Skinner (D) 232-9523 s38@...
Rep. Vaneta Becker (R) 232-9769 h78@...
Rep. Robert Behning (R) 232-9981 h91@...
Rep. Timothy Brown (R) 234-3825 h41@...
Rep.Mary Kay Budak(R) 232-9641 h20@...
Rep. Da vid Frizzell (R) 232-9981 h93@...
Rep. Donald Lehe (R) 232-9648 h15@...
Rep. Richard Dodge (R) 232-9729 h51@...
Rep. Charlie Brown (D) 232-9676 h3@...
Rep. David Orentlicher (D) 232-9991 h86@...
Rep. Craig Fry (D) 232-9994 h5@...
Rep. Carolene Mays (D) 232-0243 h94@...
Rep. Scott Reske (D) 232-9695 h37@...

[Immortal Goat]

Shit, this is getting out of hand. Soon we're going to see mandatory "chastity belts" and the only way to get the key is to get married.

[kahljorn]

instead of a ring on a finger it will be a key on the finger. Or you know, maybe it will be fingerprint activated, so you have to finger her before you can get some action.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

What's the likelihood of somebody being able to adopt a child if they're single? How often does that happen? If it's difficult, in other words if adoption weighs against single parents, then would it be fair to let that person essentially buy a baby?

This bill is also however just a shot at gay people, hidden behind different kinds of language. Pretty shitty.

[Jonathan Clement]

...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You suck really bad, you know that, right?

[kahljorn]

I think that's a good point at it being a shot against gays. No gay marriages, then no adoptions if you're gay.
I wonder if they'll extinct the gay people from gaylopolapolis like that(or if they think that, anyhow). "First, we'll make it so they can't marry, then we'll take away anyone who shares their gay blood. They'll never appear again. "

[KevinTheOmnivore]

That sounds kind of crazy, but it isn't far from the truth.

The Christian Right in this country figured out that you risk alienating yourself from the American middle class if you scream on about broad concept issues, like gays, abortion, etc.

So what you do is you go after it in the state house, in Congress, and you chip away at those things bit by bit. Don't like abortion? Okay, well, Roe isn't getting overturned, so instead ban partial birth, pass the Peterson bill, push for parental consent at the state level, etc.

They're trying to cultivate an atmosphere where it ultimately just makes sense to take that last step. I don't think this Indiana is quite that conspiratorial, but it's a step.

I agree about the two parent studies though.

[glowbelly]

i can't completely argue the 2 parent thang either...but what i do know is that i was the product of a 2 parent marriage that failed as soon as i was born (daddy went a-runnin and never turned back).

i can't say what is more hurtful:
knowing that you have a real, true father who has other children that he talks to but for some reason won't talk to you

or

knowing that you have a real, true father who chose to give you up for adoption because he didn't have the means to take care of you

orrrrrr

knowing that you were cultivated in a test tube because your mommy really wanted you, but was unable to find a decent man to marry first.

[Sethomas]

GO HOOSIERS! :conservativewhackjob

[glowbelly]

yay go go go

it pisses me off because it's just another way for us naughty women to get in trouble by doing something that comes (rather) naturally.

who are you to tell me i can't get pregnant? huh, buddy?

i know that this is geared towards WOMEN who are trying to conceive the not-so-old-fashioned way, but still. if i'm willing to pay an insane amount of money to get myself knocked up, who are you to tell me no just because i'm not married?

i had my son out of wedlock. if that makes me a dirty sinner in your eyes, well, i dunno...don't look at me.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

So do you think adoption laws should be different? Is it right that someone who might be deemed unfit to adopt a child could then just go buy a child for the right price?

[Sethomas]

I wasn't criticizing you, Glow. I was mocking my own state.

You had a child with someone to whom you're obviously committed, which beats out quite a lot of already married parents.

[kellychaos]

the question of being, in general, alas, falls to Seth ... as it should be (no pun intended)?

[Emu]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Clement

...

No, dude, I'm completely serious here, I want to know what you think about this. It'll be glorious.

[glowbelly]

i think it's right that the state stay out of what's going on in my uterus. unless you are my husband (or significant other) or my doctor, you've got no right to know what's going on in there.

as for adoption laws:

(thought stolen from daphne)
if they succeed in passing this law and it becomes precedent across the united states there won't be any need for adoption laws, unless all these married couples who are having babies decide that they don't want them anymore.

[Sethomas]

Fret not, I read that the bill has been dropped.

[mburbank]

Alls I know is this mean Katie and Tom is gonna need to move they's weddin' date up real fast!


You know, nothing makes more sense than the government haveing legal sovereignighty over biological fucntion. I can't wait until they decide when I shit and throwing up is a crime.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Just keep voting republican, folks.....

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by glowbelly

i think it's right that the state stay out of what's going on in my uterus. unless you are my husband (or significant other) or my doctor, you've got no right to know what's going on in there.

This particular legislation didn't care about what was going on in your uterus. It was (aside from being anti-gay) an attempt to regulate what types of people should or could have access to these embryos, much like an adoption agency determines who should or could have access to already born babies.

if they succeed in passing this law and it becomes precedent across the united states there won't be any need for adoption laws, unless all these married couples who are having babies decide that they don't want them anymore.

How so? There'd still be qualifications for adoption, even for married couples. Married couples get denied adoption rights all of the time, this is why there's a black market for this.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

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."

This isn't an attack on women. As stated before, this is an attack on gay's that are hiring a women to birth one of their children through insemination. It still could affect some people who don't wish to marry, but I don't know how many unmarried people are trying to have kids through artifical insemination. If anything, it's 90% gay people getting kids through this, especially lesbians.

The punishment for becoming pregnant should be a forced abortion. That'd be so classic. God bless America, and God bless me for not being born in a country run by retarded people who deprive all their knowledge from a book written by other retards.

[Chojin]

I think the word you were looking for was 'derive'.

[glowbelly]

ummm, if i was an unmarried lady (which i am, but not for long CONGRATULATE ME MOTHERFUCKER) and i wanted to get pregnant and i couldn't do it naturally, i would be shit outta luck. that's messing with what goes on in my body. if i decide that i want to have a child, nobody should tell me that i can't because i don't have a husband.

the adoption thing was hyperbole, really. i mean if the state succeeded in making this law a reality and you weren't allowed to have children (can you see the inherent ickiness in that statement alone?) unless you were hitched, then who would give up their kids for adoption? unmarried women? nope. they aren't ALLOWED to conceive, silly.

what i would have rather seen was something that made a tiny bit more sense. marriage doesn't make anyone a parent. maybe if they were asking that unmarried women took parenting classes before they got knocked up then it wouldn't be quite as bad.

it doesn't matter, i guess, because the bill isn't going anywhere. it just upset me. i'm a single mom and if i wasn't able to have a child naturally, you can bet your little bottom that i would have gone some other route. to have the government tell me "nope sorry, no can do unless you say i do" would be horrifying. it's really not their business. at all.

[Carnivore]

Complete and utter bullshit. While I would say two parents is a better situation, the govenment shouldn't have any right to make such restrictions if the mother is financially able to support the child.