The Crime of "Unauthorized Reproduction" WTF?
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."
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 things 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."
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."
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 things 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."
posted by Contact... at 10:21 AM
11 Comments:
I am guessing the tag line "new law will....." was copied from a headline? Just wanted to point out that this language implies this bill will be effectuated, which is almost certainly untrue.
The fact that a bill is being considered by a legislative committee is indicative of almost nothing. In this case, it seems to be indicative of what idiot jackasses a majority of the members of this committee are, but it is not indicative of what the law will be in Indiana.
Legislation is very difficult to pass, unfortunately. The system is a crazy patchwork maze of committees and revisions, and by far most bills end up dead in the water.
As a lawyer, I seriously doubt this bill will ever make it out of the committee. If it does happen to, it will never be passed into law by the full senate, and if it is, it will never be passed by the full legislature. If lightning strikes the Indiana capitol building, and the law does indeed pass, it will never, ever, be upheld as constitutional.
Something here does bother me, though. I'm not even sure that anyone should be allowed to conceive artificially. The world is overpopulated and there are more children who need caregivers than there are willing adults to give the care. In such a situation, I find it unethical for anyone to "make a baby" where there otherwise wouldn't be one. If people really want kids so badly, they should be willing to raise one who is already here and already has no one. I don't think it is right for a single woman, a straight couple, a gay couple, a single man, a married couple or an unmarried couple to artificially conceive. It is a misuse of resources, it is an abuse of technology.
As far as this bill goes, I think our fair Republican Senator just wants some publicity. She's an idiot, what she said is moronic, this bill is not worth the paper its written on, and the fact that something like this is even being considered says a lot about how dysfunctional, illogical and pointless the American lawmaking process is.
If I was an Indiana resident, what I'd be MOST pissed off at is that my tax dollars are being spent paying senators to spend their time considering bills that are obviously never going to pass, and never going to be upheld as proper expressions of legislative authority. Waste of time, waste of money, waste of ink, waste of breath.
Can anyone say Handmaid's Tale???? geez scary as hell.....
You gotta love the language: "unauthorized reproduction" sounds like photocopying fake IDs or something.
My first take on this, though, is that it's another full-on attack on gay families. Only rich people can afford fertility treatments. Wonder why Sen. Wackjob doesn't just push for a moratorium on divorce? Or hard-plastic molded morality headgear for youth, or.....
I was privileged to interview Dan Savage on the radio recently, and he talked a lot about how straight people have made marriage a screwed up, meaningless thing -- and watch the right-wingers now, falling all over each other to prevent gay marriage, even as the "blue" states (is Indiana blue?) have the highest divorce rates in the country...........or maybe that's why. (Dan's new book, "The Commitment," reads just like the best of Erma Bombeck on this stuff..... I highly recommend it).
This is really bad, about the "unauthorized reproduction" thing......cause now I know it's wrong, makes me want to GO DO IT. Er, AGAIN.
After press time, NUVO received the the following statement from Indiana State Senator Patricia Miller (R-Indianapolis) regarding possible assisted reproduction technology legislation:
"The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission."
Just in case they try to pull this kind of shit again, here are the members of the Health Finance Commission:
Sen. Patricia Miller (R) 232-9489 s32@in.gov
Sen. Gregory Server (R) 232-9490 s50@in.gov
Sen. Gary Dillon (R) 232-9808 s17@in.gov
Sen. Beverly Gard (R) 232-9493 s28@in.gov
Sen. Ryan Mishler (R) 233-0930 s9@in.gov
Sen. Connie Lawson (R) 232-9984 s24@in.gov
Sen. Marvin Riegsecker (R) 232-9488 s12@in.gov
Sen. Billie Breaux (D) 232-9849 s34@in.gov
Sen. Vi Simpson (D) 232-9849 s40@in.gov
Sen. Connie Sipes (D) 232-9526 s46@in.gov
Sen. Timothy Skinner (D) 232-9523 s38@in.gov
Rep. Vaneta Becker (R) 232-9769 h78@in.gov
Rep. Robert Behning (R) 232-9981 h91@in.gov
Rep. Timothy Brown (R) 234-3825 h41@in.gov
Rep. Mary Kay Budak (R) 232-9641 h20@in.gov
Rep. David Frizzell (R) 232-9981 h93@in.gov
Rep. Donald Lehe (R) 232-9648 h15@in.gov
Rep. Richard Dodge (R) 232-9729 h51@in.gov
Rep. Charlie Brown (D) 232-9676 h3@in.gov
Rep. David Orentlicher (D) 232-9991 h86@in.gov
Rep. Craig Fry (D) 232-9994 h5@in.gov
Rep. Carolene Mays (D) 232-0243 h94@in.gov
Rep. Scott Reske (D) 232-9695 h37@in.gov
Told ya'.
This, I hope, is just grandstanding to please some Christian Right voting base. I can't imagine something this preposterous would ever get past the full Indiana congress.
Some interesting questions are raised, however. What happens to the child born to an unmarried mother? Is the state going to raise it? Will it be put out for adoption? If parents divorce is the child suddenly illegitimate? What happens to the legal rights disputes over frozen embryos where the parents are no longer married? The list goes on.
Even deeper is the question of what purpose marriage serves. That's another whole discussion.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
So what, we're setting up for a whole new breed of criminals? This just makes no sense whatsoever. It would turn several politicians into criminals (past or present) as well.
And really, what IS so freakin' great about MARRIAGE?!?! In my world, it seems like another lagality. Another LAW enforcing someone else's beliefs on me. I am not currently married (been there, done that) but in a very content, loving, appreciative, caring, NON-OBLIGATIONAL domestic partnership. We don't take each other for granted, because either could walk at any minute, and prefer it to marriage. Suffice it to say, since I am a non-working 40-year-old, single-mom student, I have no health insurance and can't use my beau's, because we're not "married". But compared to many married folks, we're sure a lot happier!!
Marriage doesn't mean crap in this day and age to most folks. Kudos to those of you who are willing to work at and stay married (seems rare when both partners will)!!
But does this law make ANY sense? Half the people in this country have their kids while unmarried! Get a grip lady...and get off your self-righteous trip, egads!
R-E-A-D-I-N-G is your friend. Treat it as such.
This was never a law, it was a gleam in some republican lawmaker's eye, and that's all that ever became of it.
If it had become law, the criminal penalty was supposed to apply to an unwed mother who became pregnant by means other than sexual intercourse. It meant single mothers couldn't get in vitro fertilization. It never was intended to mean that single motherhood was to be criminalized. Had to be single motherhood, assisted by the intervention of medical technology. (In my personal opinion, I don't know if it's good saocial policy for ANYONE to conceive kids outside of sexual intercourse--see prior post.)
I know that it's easy to rail against the right, but arguments from the left sound a lot better when we understand what we're talking about.
I'm glad you're so happily unmarried, but your happiness vs. unhappiness in marriage is not really relevant. Half of marriages end in divorce, half don't. Seems like there still are a lot of us who are committed to the idea of commitment.
Personally, being in a relationship where "either one of us could walk at any time" to me sounds completely shitty. I mean, if you're married either one can walk at any time too, so how is your situation so different?
Sometimes I think the un-marrieds are confused--y'all are still looking for committed, long term relationships. Seems we're talking about differences without much distinction.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but I think it's a bold statement to say that single women should not be allowed to have their own baby via insemination. If a woman is single, financial stable, and has a great desire to have her own baby, she should not be denied that if it's possible. Yes, there may be thousands of children that need good homes, but it's not mine or anyone else's job to save the world. A lot of women want their own baby. That's not a selfish desire. It's normal. Not to mention the cost and wait that comes along with adopting. Yes, there is foster parenting, but there is a lot of risk in that as well. Yes, I am thankful for the wonderful people who take in foster children and adopt children who need homes, but just because a woman wants their own baby and to experience pregnancy she shouldn't be looked down on. Just because a child has a mother and a father doesn't mean everything is great, and just because a child is being raised by a single mother doesn't mean everything is bad. Most single women who get fertility treatments have thought out the pros and cons, and are prepared. Why should a woman be denied the greatest joy in life just because she hasn't found the right man? At one point I thought about just settling on someone so that I could have that one thing I have always wanted, a baby. Then I realized that a happy mother was the best gift I could give my baby, and me being a marriage I didn't truly want would not make a good environment for a child. I am happy signle, and I plan on having three children of my own. I am pregnant with the first one now. Yes, I could have gone out and slept around to get pregnant, but I choose an option that allowed myself and my baby to be disease free. Also, I have the complete medical backgroung of my babies father and everyone on his family tree. This was my choice, and no matter what, a child is a gift from God. Every child born, no matter the circumstances, is meant to be. Until you have walked in the shoes of a single women who knew she could give a child everything he/she needed and more, then made the decision to bring a baby into this world via means that are unconventional, you just can't understand the thought and feelings that go into it. I am so thankful that I am able to have my own family without having to rely on a man to provide for us. I mean, it's not like I am asking for any help from anyone. I think that who you should be angry at is the single or married people who have babies and then depend on government. Yes, some may really need it, but I know tons of people who abuse it. I am sorry if I am on going on and on, but it just breaks my heart to hear someone say I shouldn't be allowed to have children because I am single when I am better prepared than most married people.
Post a Comment
<< Home