Indiana - marriage required for non-traditional reproduction?

[ajbera]

Since my other thread is generating zero interest, here's something to chew on. I stumbled across this on another site I frequent:

http://www.boomantribune.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2005/10/3/223530/406

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 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."

[more...]

Here's the legislation:

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

The libertarian side of me is outraged; the conservative side of me, the one that recognizes that stable families are best for raising children (not to denigrate the thousands of single parents who have done wonderful jobs raising their children, my late mother-in-law included), while down on the criminilization aspect, isn't sure the overall concept is bad. I'm no anti-sex, pro-family type - I have no intention of having children, and I think mature, responsible, consenting adults should have all the sex they want, without restriction or interference. And I support gay marriage, gay adoption, etc. But I do feel society should promote and advocate a stable family situation for children, existing and potential.

[chequita guevara]

It'll never survive the courts even if it passes.

[snoopy369]

I think that the marriage requirement is unconstitutional and wrong.

I also have a problem with the parentage certificate. This is NOT the same thing as adoption, which is what I initially thought about; adoption requires proof of ability to raise a child etc., because the state is giving you a child THAT IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR. IE, it's no different than if I had a child and put it up for adoption; I'd check every person who applied and give him/her to the best parent possible.

This is simply people having THEIR OWN children - just not through traditional means. Presumably these people are having children through these means because they aren't capable of having normally conceived children ...

... meaning this is discrimanatorial based on a disability (there are many that apply here). The state has no right to be in any way involved in the determination of 'fit parents' UNLESS AND UNTIL something is actually done wrong.

It's no different from any other criminal act - the state has NO RIGHT to arrest you because they think you might do something wrong; they have to prove you WILL do something wrong (ie you made concrete plans to kill the president or something), or you HAVE DONE something wrong.

It has nothing to do with 'strong family values' or 'making sure kids have good homes'. This is just one step towards requiring sterilization of people who are deemed by the state to be unfit to have children ... ie the poor, the racial minorities, etc.

Not in MY America.

[GePap]

I am with Che. This law, even if it passes the legislature, would not stand a chance in hell in the courts. Its absurd.

[Odin]

I'm assuming this is so lesbians can't have kids, right?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by snoopy369
It has nothing to do with 'strong family values' or 'making sure kids have good homes'. This is just one step towards requiring sterilization of people who are deemed by the state to be unfit to have children ... ie the poor, the racial minorities, etc.

Not in MY America.

Interestingly enough, Indiana was one of the first places to go with wholesale sterilizations and eugenics.

[Japher]

And those who are having trouble reproducing... like old people and mixed couples

[Mr. Harley]

Actual, Indiana was a bastion of the resurgent KKK. In fact from what I understand it was central to it's revitalization in the 20th century. It's my neighboring state.

[chequita guevara]

I thought you were an Arkansan.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

thats mr mitchell

[Sava]

this is seriously disturbing...

there is something seriously wrong with the people who want this kind of legislation...

criminal penalties for having children out of wedlock?

what penalties? burning them at the stake?

what kind of backwards ass society do we live in? who the hell votes these ignorant morons into office? oh yeah... other ignorant morons...

and people wonder why I want to not live in this ****ed up world

[asleepathewheel]

This bill has already been withdrawn before being voted on.

A quick retreat once this went public.

[chequita guevara]

I would have attached a rider that required permission fo Republicans to vote.

[Mr. Harley]

What is seriously disturbing is that the Indiana GOP, or even the National GOP, did not force her to resign the party. (note: the Dems have in the past also not properly censured this kind of behavior, but we are discussing this case). Was it an "Oops, she's a nutcase and we'll ignore her" or "She's pandering to our conservative religious base so we'll just have her withdraw it - wink, wink." Since the GOP went after the disaffected white racist vote in the South after LBJ, I have found the party powers that be increasingly repugnant.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Odin
I'm assuming this is so lesbians can't have kids, right?

And so that gay men cannot have a kid through a surrogate mother.