Indiana - marriage required for non-traditional reproduction?

[DRoseDARs]

Folks, they already withdrew this abhorrent proposal several days ago.

Bill To Limit Reproductive Rights For Gays, Singles Dropped

Reported by: A.P.
Web produced by: Neil Relyea
Photographed by: 9News
10/5/2005 10:03:29 PM



INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- A state senator has changed her mind about sponsoring a bill that would prohibit homosexuals and unmarried people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child.
Senator Patricia Miller of Indianapolis says the issue has become more complex than she thought. So she is withdrawing it from consideration.

Miller said earlier this week that state law does not have regulations on assisted reproduction and should have similar requirements to adoption in Indiana.

She acknowledged when she proposed it that the legislation would be "enormously controversial."

The bill defined assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including artificial insemination, the donation of an egg or embryo and sperm injection.


http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/10/05/gay_ban.html

[MrFun]

whew

[Ecthy]

Sorry but Indiana was the name of the family's dog.

[DRoseDARs]

Which is not to say I opposed it in the first place. I really wish they'd stuck with it a bit longer. Once the national media got a hold of it, the public outrage would have destroyed any politician (Rep. or Dem.) having supported it. Nothing like atrocious legislation to clean out a house.

[Q Classic]

Thank god it was withdrawn.

Who the feck comes up with **** like this? I want what they're smokin'.

[Seeker]

Marriage is either a religious or cultural arrangement.

Why the fork is the state involved in marriage in any way, shape, or form?

It should be a relationship between individuals, not between individuals and the stupid, forked-up state.

"I hereby declare the marriage of these three...John, Jane, and the State of Indiana. Hope you got enough room in that bed!"

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It'll never survive the courts even if it passes.

Why so? Isn't marriage an official status which grants access to specific priviledges?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Why so? Isn't marriage an official status which grants access to specific priviledges?

Procreation is not a "special privildge". Its a basic biological imperative.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
Procreation is not a "special privildge". Its a basic biological imperative.

Yes, but the law specifically mention artificial procreation. It is still allowed for an unmarried woman to have children naturally.

Not that I support this garbage at all. But I wonder what legal arguments one could pull to put it down in the courts.

[Dr Strangelove]

Wouldn't it have been a hoot if they had accidently outlawed giving birth out of wedlock?

[Theben]

According to the article, even married couples might not be able to have kids in vitro, if they didn't pass the screening process.

[Ted Striker]

Any lesbians need artificial insemination call 1-800-STRIKER

[Seeker]

That's ARTIFICIAL insemination, Ted.

Unless you feel you might as well get paid for your hobby?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yes, but the law specifically mention artificial procreation. It is still allowed for an unmarried woman to have children naturally.

Not that I support this garbage at all. But I wonder what legal arguments one could pull to put it down in the courts.

ADA, for starters.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/discrimdisab.html

Covered entities must not:

    * Establish eligibility criteria for receipt of services or participation in programs 
or activities that screen out or tend to screen out individuals with disabilities, 
unless such criteria are necessary to meet the objectives of the program.
    * Provide separate or different benefits, services, or programs to individuals with disabilities,
 unless it is necessary to ensure that the benefits and services are equally effective.

This law would force healthcare providers that allow for artificial conception to be in violation of the ADA in both of these provisions. (Disability in this case would be infertility, among others.)

There are more broad civil rights abridgment suits that could be brought, but this is a pretty clear and specific one.

[snoopy369]

Heck, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 might well be used - "religion" after all, there are undoubtedly religions that don't condone marriage in the US sense, and more reasonably the law might be seen as INTENDING to discriminate based on religion, and thus prima facie unconstitutional ...