Indiana - marriage required for non-traditional reproduction?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You don't even have to go that far, snoopy . This bill would violate the substantive due process right to procreation (ie, right to privacy). In the end that is what Roe v. Wade does stand for. Abortion, yes, but alsol a woman's right to procreate or not procreate.

[snoopy369]

I doubt it. And not to start a troll/flame war, but Roe v Wade was quite a stretch of a decision when it was made on the 'right to privacy' grounds. No that I disagree with the end result, but I'm with Roberts when I say that there's no right to procreation in the constitution.

And on top of that, this isn't violating a right to privacy even with the Roe v Wade argument, I don't think ... but certainly the SCOTUS wouldn't buy that argument in this day and age.

What there IS, is a right for people not to be discriminated against based on disability (not in the constitution, but in federal law). That's the precise thing that's happening here, and it's the precisely right law to use to oppose this based on, rather than the shaky RvW reasoning.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I doubt it.

Doubt it all you want. It's there.

Skinner v. Oklahoma, decided in 1942, before the right to privacy was fully articulated said there was a right to procreation (as a penumbra right), in response to forced sterlization statute.

[GePap]

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.

How could you differentiate between natural and artificial insemination? What is the legal difference to draw?

[snoopy369]

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. 
Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

That is the only portion of that decision that really is relevant- but a pretty relevant sentence if you ask me

Now, I'm not sure I think that the SCOTUS would still find directly in this way; and sterilization is a bit more significant. Also note that this is not the judge finding this in the constitution, but "basic civil rights of man" ... ie, judicial legislation. In this case clearly justified - but the current SC is not nearly of this bent, and I'd suggest that we probably now have a court where the majority of members will strictly read the constitution and not add in "penumbra" rights.

On the other hand, part of Roe v Wade did indeed extend the marital rights to unmarried people. (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/325/325lect04.htm covers this for example.) It would be certainly interesting for this case to come to the SCOTUS under Roberts, and see where they go with it

I still hold that the ADA objection would be the safer and more solid objection. It's clearly written in that law, instead of interpreted from judicial precedent

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by GePap


How could you differentiate between natural and artificial insemination? What is the legal difference to draw?

I suppose they could draw the line at "right of the state to regulate". IE, the former is something that happens with no intervention by a state-regulated entity (doctor, hospital, etc.) ... while the state DOES have the right (and responsibility) of regulation over the doctors and hospitals, and when they may or may not perform operations.

Not that I support this of course, but that's probably what they'd argue

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's clearly written in that law, instead of interpreted from judicial precedent

Judicial precedent is just as much law as statutes, and Roberts, in his confirmation hearings agreed (as does any legal scholar).

[Edan]

Joke heard on another forum:

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."

Why do Republicans hate the Virgin Mary?

[MOBIUS]

Whenever I meet or hear about a particularly ignorant or stupid American, they always seem to come from Indiana - this only reinforces my already low opinions of the 'Hoosier State'...

Is it known as a dumb state in America?

Still, I'm sure there are some intelligent Indianans out there...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It's clearly written in that law, instead of interpreted from judicial precedent

Judicial precedent is just as much law as statutes, and Roberts, in his confirmation hearings agreed (as does any legal scholar).

No. Statutes have greater weight than precedent.

This is not to say that precedent has NO weight, in fact it has a LOT of weight ... but significant laws (such as the ADA) have more.

In this instance, as i said earlier, both cases would have substantial merit. I just feel that the ADA case would have *more* merit; no judge could reasonably object to the ADA case, while it's possible, albeit very improbable, that they could overrule the precedent. (After all, the case you state above was in a sense overruling precedent set by our dear justice Holmes, that suggested the sterilization, in a case 30 years before, that was now being objected to )