Doggedly searching for the crux of the biscuit.
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. [...]
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."
Welcome to your Republican Party.
Update: The bill has been withdrawn following an avalanche of criticism. Good job, everybody, but don't think that we've heard the last of this.
TrackBackholy smokes! should the children of widows be confiscated?
Posted by: mcmc at October 4, 2005 10:27 PMEveryone seems to be focused on the "you have to be married" aspect, but I think that's the least of the issues here; I think it was an afterthought. The central issues are a little harder to grasp:
///quotation///
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.
///quotation///
It seems they're trying to clarify the legal status of the various parents involved in extra-sexual reproductive methods.
That, or it's cleverly disguised eugenics … weeding out the people who can't have children from having children.
Posted by: Alan at October 4, 2005 11:28 PMOK, so I already don't want to have children - does this mean that I could move to Indiana, get married (*shiver*) and then go into black market gestational certificate swapping?
According to Sen. Miller, the laws prohibiting surrogacy in the state of Indiana are currently too vague and unenforceable
So, I don't know, create a law that says surrogacy is permitted - or not permitted. But don't pull in all the other mumbo-jumbo about getting married, parentage, etc.
Somehow, the punch line of taking a test to get a drivers licence vs not needing a test to get knocked up/become a parent seems a little ickier now.
Posted by: KJ at October 5, 2005 12:10 AMActually it looks to me very much targeted at lesbians trying to have a child through artificial insemination.
Posted by: Vince at October 5, 2005 09:12 AMin regards to Vince's comment...Bingo.
I don't think that part was an afterthought.
Posted by: roberta at October 5, 2005 09:27 AMNo question, Vince hit the bullseye. This is about keeping lesbians from having children.
I am so furious right now. I have to go walk around the building. I shouldn't be allowed to read the internet when I'm at work.
Posted by: Robust McManlyPants at October 5, 2005 05:51 PMHey, I'd like to get a law passed that would have the government pay me *not* to have kids. Because I'm just not going to have them. So why not reward me for it (other than the fact that society tells me every day in various ways to fulfill my feminine destiny and squeeze out a sprog)? Why can't that be in a goddamn bill.
I'll happily trade my gestional certificate with a sad dyke couple in Indiana! Subvert the stupid Man!
Posted by: KJ at October 5, 2005 06:30 PM
Vince said, "Actually it looks to me very much targeted at lesbians trying to have a child through artificial insemination."
Okay, that's so obvious I'm not sure why I missed it. Probably because I'm a heterosexual white male (three strikes; I'm out!).
I'm still wishing for the Gattica angle, though…
Posted by: Alan at October 5, 2005 09:29 PMHow do you suppose they plan to enforce this? Mandatory pregnancy tests for all unmarried women?
And what would happen if an unmarried woman was found pregnant by rape?
Posted by: Charles Watkins at October 5, 2005 11:01 PMread the first line of the quoted text agian Charles Watkins. I made that mistake at first too. It's still maddening.
Posted by: Hanke at October 6, 2005 01:45 AM