New law will require marriage as a legal condition of motherhood

Printable View

10-05-2005, 03:03 PM
ramanth

New law will require marriage as a legal condition of motherhood

:eek: :mad:
Unauthorized Reproduction bill has been drafted

As an attorney told me, keep in mind that this will never happen. However it disturbs me deeply that something like this is even being thought, let alone put down in writing for consideration as law!

Damn, I fear for this country...

Quote:

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.

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/interi...lim/HFCO04.pdf

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:

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@...
10-05-2005, 03:04 PM
Jessika

I can KIND OF understand where they're coming from with that. I mean it would certainly cut down on teenage pregnancies.

To tell you the truth though I can't imagine having a child with someone that I WASN'T going to spend the rest of my life with.
10-05-2005, 03:11 PM
Ally Cat's Mommy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessika

I can KIND OF understand where they're coming from with that. I mean it would certainly cut down on teenage pregnancies.

I don't see how it will cut down on teenage pregnancies - the law is to prevent unmarried women from getting pregnant using artificial means - I am sure most teenage pregnancies happen the "old-fashioned" way.

IMHO it just limits the choices open to a mature woman who has decided she is ready for motherhood without being in a long-term relationship with a man. Personally I'd rather go to a donor-clinic than pick up a stranger in a bar!!

You are right Kim - laws like this will hopefully thankfully never be passed, but the scary thing is the amount of time money and effort which is spent on them in the first place!
10-05-2005, 03:24 PM
Jessika

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ally Cat's Mommy

I don't see how it will cut down on teenage pregnancies - the law is to prevent unmarried women from getting pregnant using artificial means - I am sure most teenage pregnancies happen the "old-fashioned" way.

I was talking about how they would need to be required to be married in order to have a child, not about the consequences for other forms of insemination other than sexual intercourse :P

I can certainly not name off one 16 or 17 year old girl who is ready to get married if she gets pregnant because of one of her many careless flings. (don't get me wrong it isn't all the girls' faults, the young teenage boys don't even need to be doing it, either).

EDIT: And don't think I'm saying I'm for this or anything, I'm not at all. I'm just saying on that aspect I can perhaps see both sides.
10-05-2005, 03:34 PM
Karen

But what will they do when teens get pregnant? It is not as if the laws in place currently against sex between minors, etc. have any kind of effect at all in the teen pregnancy rate. Are they then going to terminate the pregnancies of unmarried women of any age? What kind of totalitarian state is Indiana trying to become?

I understand that they think a two-parent home is best, but there are other ways to do this than making single mothers criminals!
10-05-2005, 03:42 PM
KYS

I do not see how it will cut down on teenage pregnancies and only takes
away freedom for woman.

Disturbing is right!
Sounds mighty backwards to me.
10-05-2005, 04:08 PM
carole

What I find scarey is that anyone in their right mind actually thinks that having such a law would be a good thing, making single mothers criminals would be outrageous, thank goodness there is no chance of this being passed.
10-05-2005, 04:10 PM
grybai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessika

I was talking about how they would need to be required to be married in order to have a child, not about the consequences for other forms of insemination other than sexual intercourse :P.

I think maybe you misread the article. The law would just prevent women from becoming artificially inseminated if she is unwed. It's not like could enforce premarital sex and they are not going to take her child away if she is not married. So, it has nothing to do with teenage pregnancies.

It's so silly and I just don't understand what good it would do. Women who choose to be artificially insemenated are doing so because they want to have a child and have planned for it. It seems like parents who become so accidently would be a much bigger problem. There are many women who are ready to become mothers and who either haven't yet found a partner or don't want one. What's wrong with that? There also a gay issue here. I am a lesbian and I hope to have a child through artificial insemination some time in the next ten years and at this point in time, it is illegal for me to get married in nearly every state.

Sometimes I really think the status of women has improved a good deal, but things like this make me feel like we're taking a giant leap backwards. :mad: :mad:
10-05-2005, 04:14 PM
carole

I agree with your last statement so much, woman have been opressed for so long, this is just another attempt and hopefully a failed one at doing that yet again, I for one get so sick and tired of woman being treated as second class citizens. :(
10-05-2005, 04:17 PM
Jessika

Quote:

Originally Posted by grybai

I think maybe you misread the article. The law would just prevent women from becoming artificially inseminated if she is unwed. It's not like could enforce premarital sex and they are not going to take her child away if she is not married. So, it has nothing to do with teenage pregnancies.

The very first paragraph states:

Quote:

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."

INCLUDING women who become pregnant by means other than sexual intercourse. So its not LIMITED to that, but also includes it, and that is what I was referring to.
10-05-2005, 04:32 PM
DJFyrewolf36

The intent of this law is to prevent unmarried women from getting pregnant by artificial means, however the law does read "Including artificial means" which can be interpreted by a court to mean that ALL pregnancies that occur in unwed women can be targeted as illigal. I'd have to read the actuall bill to make a final determination though. Do you have a link to it?

How in the world can they enforce a law like this? If it does only apply to artificial insemination, then of course the law can be enforced like any other law that bans a medical procedure but then you'll have the problem that plagued people when abortion was illigal: Backyard clinics doing things the black-market way and the result will be women that are siriously injured or killed. Now, what are they planning on doing if they wish to make it illigal to be a single mother in any circumstance? Forced Abortions? I think that will fly like a lead ballon in a lightning storm.
10-05-2005, 04:33 PM
grybai

I see where the confusion comes from. It's actually a punctuation error. It should read "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.'"

Another article (http://newstandardnews.net/content/?...em&itemid=2445), states it more clearly: "The proposed legislation would bar unmarried people from having babies except through sexual intercourse and makes doing so – or even attempting to do so – a misdemeanor."
10-05-2005, 04:54 PM
DJFyrewolf36

Well at least the law isnt AS bizzare! But still, like I said before, a law like this could result in women being hurt or killed because if they are determined enough to have a baby then they'll just go to an illigal practitioner, just like the case is with Abortions.
10-05-2005, 05:04 PM
grybai

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJFyrewolf36

Well at least the law isnt AS bizzare! But still, like I said before, a law like this could result in women being hurt or killed because if they are determined enough to have a baby then they'll just go to an illigal practitioner, just like the case is with Abortions.

I don't know... I'd just use a turkey baster at home like most good lesbians. :p Or go to a different state.

In any case, the chances of it actually passing at pretty slim.
10-05-2005, 05:14 PM
caseysmom

Grybai...you owe me a new keyboard! I just about spit out my coffee! I never thought of the turkey baster idea....I figure maybe they want you to suffer through one loveless night with a man to be able to have a child....gee thats a lot better.... :rolleyes:
10-05-2005, 05:47 PM
animal_rescue

Quote:

Originally Posted by caseysmom

Grybai...you owe me a new keyboard! I just about spit out my coffee! I never thought of the turkey baster idea....I figure maybe they want you to suffer through one loveless night with a man to be able to have a child....gee thats a lot better.... :rolleyes:

No no no, I like the turkey baster idea!! Just remember, never tell your kids where they came from. :D
10-05-2005, 05:49 PM
tatsxxx11

Wow, I have to go back and read the bill more closely but on first glance, it seems some pretty chilling inferences may be drawn. What is the ultimate goal, to assure that only married couples be allowed to procreate? If they can prevent unmarried women from conceiving by artificial means, i.e. aritificial insemination, what is to say that in the future unwed women, wishing to conceive by conventional means, wouldn't have their births deemed illegeal? What is the difference??? Last time I checked, sperm banks, fertility clinics were not government run, I didn't need to ask my legislator..."May I?" ! What about couples where the husband is "handicapped," artficial insemination being their only recourse? What if the husband should die before conceiving and the women then chooses to become pregnant by aritificial insemination, with her husband's frozen sperm? Would she then be prohibited from doing so, based soley on the fact that she now is widowed? Why not make all couples, married or not, undergo the same intense scrutiny of the adoption process criteria before being allowed to have a child; not just single women! Well, two parents, being married, does not assure by ANY means, GOOD parenting!

I'm sorry "unauthorized reproduction," reproduction without state approval a crime? They can't be serious.

Quote:

As 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."
10-05-2005, 06:24 PM
DJFyrewolf36

The term "Unauthorized Reproduction" sounds kind of Nazi-ish and very scary to me.

tatsxxx11...You echoed my thoughts.

Grybai...I've known a few people that have actually TRIED the turkey baster approach...although I'm not sure as to the success of said endevor!
10-05-2005, 06:34 PM
tatsxxx11

Yes, Nazi-ish. As well, eugenics came to mind, the policy of "selective reproduction," the policy of forced sterilization, practiced in many countries in the first half of the 20th century, including the U.S. In essence, selective breeding, culling out from the population, those deemed unsuitable to reproduce...criminals, the insane, the mentally retarded or emotionally challenged.
10-05-2005, 06:56 PM
lizbud

Sen. Miller has withdrawn the proposed bill.She is a long time Republican
Senator here & I was flabbergasted when I first heard about this bill.On tonights news they said she has withdrawn her proposal because of the
"unforseen legal aspects of the bill". I think she must have eaten some bad
fish or something. :rolleyes:
10-05-2005, 07:15 PM
tatsxxx11

Maybe she had a moment of clarity in her thinking...one can only hope.
10-05-2005, 07:36 PM
lizbud

Quote:

Originally Posted by tatsxxx11

Maybe she had a moment of clarity in her thinking...one can only hope.

Hope springs eternal. :)

I believe the intent was to find a way to prohibit gays and lesbians
(specifically) from using medical procedures to become pregnant.
10-05-2005, 07:39 PM
dukedogsmom

This is one of the most assinine things I've heard lately. Pretty soon, we women will have to have permission from Congress just to go to the bathroom! Pretty soon, we'll have no rights at all. What are they going to do if the people aren't married, shove it back in?
10-05-2005, 07:51 PM
Cataholic

Thank God I had Jonah in time! (and the old fashioned way, if you must know...) :D
10-05-2005, 07:59 PM
dukedogsmom

That also happens to be the most fun way!
10-05-2005, 08:11 PM
carole

I am a little scared and embarrassed to ask this, but what is the Turkey Baster Method? either I am an old naive woman, or this is just something us Kiwi's have never heard of? lol someone can always Pm me with the answer if it is not suitable to put here. I honestly have never heard this before. :confused:
10-05-2005, 08:18 PM
tatsxxx11

"This is one of the most assinine things I've heard lately. Pretty soon, we women will have to have permission from Congress just to go to the bathroom! Pretty soon, we'll have no rights at all. What are they going to do if the people aren't married, shove it back in?"

LOL! Maybe, Val!!!:D

As for the turkey baster...:confused:
10-05-2005, 08:31 PM
Karen

I sent you both a PM with the turkey baster details, as it doesn;t need to be posted publicly.
10-05-2005, 10:05 PM
caseysmom

Carol...you have heard of american ingenuity ;)
10-05-2005, 11:14 PM
finn's mom

That would suck if that ever came to pass. Because, there are some days when I would rather have a child than a husband. ;) At least, with the luck I'm having finding Mr. Right, anyway. But, I will say this, I'm not waiting around for a man, I want to have a child. I'll be 30 next year, and, I'd like to have a baby between 30 and 40. I'd hate to think I didn't have the option to be a single mother. Oy. I hopefully won't have to worry about it, and, will find my soulmate in the next ten years!
10-06-2005, 08:28 AM
ramanth

Liz, thanks for the update. I'm glad to hear the Senator had a change of heart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJFyrewolf36

I'd have to read the actuall bill to make a final determination though. Do you have a link to it?

This link was nestled in the article.

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

Does it have the info you were looking for? :)
10-06-2005, 10:40 AM
Tubby & Peanut's Mom

Quote:

Originally Posted by lizbud

I think she must have eaten some bad
fish or something. :rolleyes:

:D :D
I heard this morning that she had withdrawn her proposal - "because it was a much more complicated issue than she previously thought." :rolleyes:

Advice for senators - make sure you know all aspects of what you're proposing before you make yourself look like a complete idiot in front of the entire nation. :rolleyes:

The news report did say that what she meant the proposal to do was put some sort of regulations on "artificial" means, not that she would ban single women from getting pregnant the "old fashioned" way. Not that this makes it anymore right. I think, like Liz said "I believe the intent was to find a way to prohibit gays and lesbians (specifically) from using medical procedures to become pregnant."
10-06-2005, 01:38 PM
lizbud

A small article in the morning paper today.

Assisted-reproduction bill dropped

Mary Beth Schneider
[email protected]
A controversial proposed bill to prohibit gays, lesbians and single people from using medical procedures to produce a child has been dropped by its legislative sponsor.
State Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, issued a one-sentence statement Wednesday saying: "The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission."

Miller said later that the issue of regulating assisted reproduction, just as the state regulates adoption, is multifaceted. She said there was not enough time for the committee -- a panel of lawmakers that meets when the Indiana General Assembly is not in session to discuss possible legislation -- to work through all of the issues involved by its next meeting Oct. 20.
Miller had planned to ask the committee to vote at that meeting on whether to recommend the proposed bill to the full legislature when it meets in January.
Under her proposal, couples who needed assistance to become pregnant -- such as through intrauterine insemination; the use of donor eggs, embryos and sperm; in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer; or other medical means -- would have had to be married to each other.
In addition, married couples who needed donor sperm and eggs to become pregnant would have been required to go through the same rigorous assessment of their fitness to be parents as do people who adopt a child.
The proposal had drawn fire from the Indiana Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood of Indiana.

Call Star reporter Mary Beth Schneider at (317) 444-2772