ALERT: Unauthorized Reproduction bill

[IndianaGreen]

We just got a heads up about an upcoming article in NUVO.

A draft of the legislation which, among other things, bars unmarried
people from having children by articifial means is here:

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

Here's a draft of the story that is running this week. It will be my cover story in two weeks also. Feel free to pass this info along to every one you know. This has to be stopped!!!

Keep fighting the good fight!

Laura

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 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/interim/committee/prelim/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@...

[mikehiggins]

1. This has got to be a joke, right?

I think even this new Supreme Court would knock this into a hat. Are they all gone made?

[IndianaGreen]

2. I read the pdf file which is posted on the State Assembly website

As you scroll down the legal verbiage, it specifically bars unmarried people from becoming parents. The real target are gays and lesbians!

[DebJ]

13. that was my thought...the lesbians...but it's okay for Santorum to

reproduce....ewww!!! (A Pennsylvanian)

[scarletlib]

6. This is insane.

Please post in General Discussion so that this can be publicized far and wide. The light of day is needed to exterminate this foul legislation. (Remember last year a Virginia legislator tried to introduce legislation that would have required all women to report a miscarriage to the proper authorities within 24 hours or face criminal penalties. Nationwide publicity killed that cute little idea.)

So, unauthorized reproduction? What if the woman is raped and gets pregnant?

Jeez these assholes need to get a life.

[benburch]

3. This is institutionalized homophobia. nt

[rocktivity]

4. Unauthorized parenthood? Unauthorzied by whom?

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.

But if single people CAN have children through non-artificial means, how can his law possibly be legal?

:crazy:
rocknation

[IndianaGreen]

5. On page 6... Probate Court has jurisdiction

(b) The intended parents must be married to each other, and both spouses must be parties to the action to establish parentage.

(c) An unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

Sec. 6. (a) A petition to establish parentage must be filed in triplicate.

(b) The original copy of a petition to establish parentage must be verified by the oath or affirmation of each petitioner.

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

[rocktivity]

11. But there's no equal protection under the law

If children born out of wedlock naturally aren't subject to having "unauthorized" parents, then children born out of wedlock artificially shouldn't be, either. The law is as discriminatory as it is unconstitutional.

:headbang:
rocknation

[YouthInAsia]

14. wait, Im confused.....so they want to make it ILLEGAL to have a

baby if you're not married to the father?? Or they want to make it illegal to have fertility treatments if you're not married (both of which are INSANE). And what if you DO get pregnant if you;re not married, are they gonna send the SS to your house to "liquidate" you?

[IndianaGreen]

15. They want to make it illegal to have fertility treatments

or artificial insemination if one is not married.

No single parents. No lesbian parents. No anything-they-disaprove-of parents.

[YouthInAsia]

16. oh....cuz thats the GOVERMENTS business. I see.

[LisaLynne]

34. I can think of about a million ways this is wrong.

And get this particular tidbit:

(b) The intended parents must be married to each other, and both spouses must be parties to the action to establish parentage.

Um, what does that mean? No sperm donors other than the man the woman is married to? That's a whole 'nother can o' worms.

What is wrong with these people? I can't even form a coherent thought right now, I'm so mad. It's another case of if you're ignorant, stupid, and hateful enough to even begin to think this is okay, then there's nothing I can say to you.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. No sh**! They're out of their collective minds! Stick to intelligent

design, "geniuses".

[scarletlib]

8. Second comment:

Please nominate for greatest.

[Crunchy Frog]

9. Well shit!

I'm going to have to go ahead and utilize my frozen embryos ASAP it looks like. I'm not in Indiana, thank God, but these sorts of things can be contagious.

I'm not a lesbian by the way, I'm just a single person who happens to want a kid. It's none of their fucking business. :grr:

I think kids are best off when they are really wanted, and believe me, no one goes through IVF who doesn't really want a kid.

Oh, and I'm not letting any fundies "adopt" any of my leftover embryos either.

Edit. How in the hell would they plan to prosecute people. People will just go to another state to have it done. Are they going to arrest people for doing it out of state? Are they going to track down people's medical records to find out who's committing unauthorized parenthood?

Absolutely nuts.:wtf:

[IndianaGreen]

10. It has strong Orwellian components

This bill will actually make it illegal for a single woman to have a child by artificial means. This bill is the epitome of how the rightwing feels about families that don't measure up to their religious values.

[C_U_L8R]

17. So what happens if you do have a baby???

Do they take her/him away???


Uhoh.. did I just commit a thought crime???

[Cronus Protagonist]

25. No kidding. Next, we can have an IQ test for the parents...

...and we can decide what the career path of the child is going to be in advance, based on the IQ tests of the parents at their predestination and acceptabilit meetings.

Perhaps, through this kinder, gentler form of eugenics, we can make more dumb-ass white people willing to take dark people's jobs. That way, we can cut back on illegal immigration and give a large tax deduction to the companies that employ the predestined drones.

:sarcasm:

[AuntiBush]

12. Oh, For the Love Of...

Nuts! Not only are they the the worse corrupt mob destroying our country, they're extremists and NUTS!

Just when you think you've heard it all, here ya go - daily at that!

[girl gone mad]

18. "Studies have shown that a child raised by both parents...

a mother and a father – do better. "

Do better at what? Make more money? Do better at math? What could they possibly do better at that would justify taking them away from a loving birth parent?

This is the same bullshit argument that was used by social workers and church counselors to convince my mother to give me up for adoption after she divorced my father.

Studies show that children raised by a single birth parent are less likely to be abused than adopted children. I'd call that doing better.

[Sadie5]

19. Found a picture of her

An old battle ax!

[TaleWgnDg]

20. Geez, maybe a married lesbian couple from Massachusetts . . .

.
Geez, maybe a married lesbian couple from Massachusetts should move to Indiana and seek artificial insemination challenging this state law. I'd love to litigate that lovely mess. Or maybe a married gay male couple from Massachusetts should move to Indiana and seek an unrelated surrogate mother to artificially inseminate from one of their sperm thereby challenging this stupid law too.

Or to confuse the begeesus out of them, perhaps a civil union'd couple from Vermont or Connecticut should move to Indiana and seek artificial insemination or a surrogate mother to artificially inseminate. After all, isn't a "civil union" similar to marriage in Vermont and Connecticut and shouldn't they be recognized in Indiana too? *cough*

Talk about litigation . . . how stupid can these fundie idiots in Indiana get? Do these idiots need votes that bad that they are willing to spend state taxpayer monies on stupid litigation? How many 100 thousands will it cost in litigation fees for Indiana?

Yup, question answered in the stupidity of this law! Oh, btw, does it have a court injunction slapped on it, yet? Another rhetorical question.

The sad part of all of this is that GLBTs are the *new* darling fundie voting-getting magnets on par with abortion-anything. That means anti-GLBT state laws will be attempted chip by chip by chip as are similar anti-abortion state laws, all for votes and raising campaign funds. Ah, there's money in them thar hills. Unfortunately, it will be costly for the GLBT community and those who support the community, both monetary and emotional cost.

Bigotry for sale, anyone?


.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Here is the link to the Health Finance Commission

http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/hfco.html

The document in question is on the right hand of the page, under Preliminary Drafts. It is tittled:

Request Number 20061258

According to their calendar, they discussed "Surrogacy and infertility requirements" on 9/29 and they are scheduled to meet again on 10/20. I have notified everyone I know to get people to show up at the next meeting.

Here are the minutes of the September 8, minutes of the Health Finace Commission that gives us a good background of the issues that led to the draft proposal. How a discussion of fertility clinic standards led to a draft bill that effectively bans unmarried women, hetero or lesbian, from using fertility services is beyond me:

Infertility and Surrogacy Issues

Dr. John Jarrett distributed and reviewed materials dealing with minimum standards, reimbursements for egg donation, and various consent forms used for procedures performed by the Jarrett Infertility Group, including embryo preservation and donation. (See Exhibit 3.) These consent forms address fees, non-disclosure of anonymous donors, and legal parentage issues. Dr. Jarrett reported that no state requires adherence to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) guidelines, but that some major insurance companies have started requiring compliance. Dr. Jarrett reported that oocyte-sharing procedures are not done by the Jarrett Fertility Group for ethical reasons. The Jarrett Fertility Group also does not destroy embryos.

Dr. James Donahue, a reproductive endocrinologist, introduced himself. (See Exhibit 4.) Dr. Donahue has recently completed a master's degree in Clinical Human Embryology from the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom (UK). He commented that, in his opinion, current Indiana statutes are ambiguous with regard to surrogacy issues and the donation of embryos (e.g., is this an adoption?). He said that there is a medical justification for surrogacy, and he reviewed circumstances when surrogacy might be considered an option. Dr. Donahue stated that patients desire assistive reproductive technology for various reasons and that good things come from this technology. Dr. Donahue briefly reviewed the UK licensing and regulatory requirements. The main difference is that the UK has a licensing body called the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA). The HFEA issues a license to a party referred to as the "Person Responsible" who is defined as the individual under whose supervision the authorized activities are to be carried out. The HFEA "Code of Practice, 6th Edition," which regulates any research or treatment which involves the creation, keeping, and use of human embryos outside the body, or storage or donation of human eggs and sperm in the UK, was supplied to the Commission staff and is available upon request. (See Exhibit 5.) Dr. Donahue emphasized that regulation should define the rights of the parents with regard to any potential child and protect the welfare of the child that may result from the use of the technology. He also reported that federal law mandates reporting to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which is available online. The data available is two to three years old and does not include sufficient information to determine the number of surrogacy cases. Dr. Donahue recommended that the General Assembly should consider re-evaluation of the Indiana surrogacy statute, develop clear guidelines, and include a mechanism to ensure compliance.

Mr. Steven Kirsh, J.D., is an attorney specializing in adoption cases. He commented that he does not do surrogacy work and is not working on the current case in the news. (See Exhibit 6.) Mr. Kirsh stated that there are not enough children available for adoption. Additionally, some individuals want a biological link to their children. In this regard, medical technology that can provide the biological link has outpaced laws. (See Exhibit 6.) The children that result from the application of assistive reproductive technology services (ARTS) should be entitled to protection under the law. Current adoption laws require screening of potential parents and home visits. Counseling is also required for parents wishing to adopt and for biological parents terminating their parental rights. Mr. Kirsh commented that Indiana similarly needs laws governing ARTS that define the legal parents, who can participate in these procedures, and that also protect the best interests of the child. He said there are additional questions with regard to the custody of cryopreserved embryos and gametes.

Mr. Kirsh reported that Indiana statutes are clear that surrogacy contracts are not enforceable. He defined a surrogate mother as potentially having a biologic link to the child. Mr. Kirsh commented that surrogates have decided in the past not to relinquish custody of the child and that the same requirements of other ARTS procedures should apply to surrogacy. He then defined a gestational carrier, as an individual who has no biologic connection to the child that fills a need allowing a woman who cannot carry a baby to term to have a biological child. Mr. Kirsh stated that a comprehensive statutory scheme is essential. It should include mandatory contract provisions that must be included, mandatory home studies and counseling, and remedies for noncompliance and court supervision. He said that an Indiana statute could be based upon the Uniform Parentage Act or examples from other states that have enacted legislation. Mr. Kirsh concluded by saying that some states have no legislation, some have bans, but that without legislation, the courts will determine practice through the application of case law.

Senator Miller requested Mr. Kirsh to work with Dr. Eric Meslin and the Commission's staff attorney on a bill draft to be discussed at the next Commission meeting.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/minutes/HFCO898.pdf

[kimchi]

21. Yes, please do repost in GD.

Oooo, how Handmaid's Tale of them. Next they will outlaw Cosmo (actually not a big deal to me), Vanity Fair, etc. Only Good Housekeeping mags from now on, ladies.

Hey republicans--keep your laws off my body!

[IndianaGreen]

23. Link to the GD thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4963321

Bear in mind that the lifespan of threads in GD is very short.

[DarkTirade]

24. What... teh... eff?!?!?!?

[DarleenMB]

26. I don't usually

involve myself in other states political agendas but I WILL make an exception this time. Does anyone know what the rest of the email addie is for these nutballs???

[thinkingwoman]

27. notice only women will be the criminals

there's no prescreening or criminal charges associated with men donating sperm.

Fucking homophobic mysogynistic fuckfaces! :mad:


P.S. Pardon my french. ;-)

[central scrutinizer]

28. Indiana's proud legislative history

Remember, this is the state that tried to legislate the value of pi.

http://www.inwit.com/inwit/writings/indianapilaw.html

How ironic, they couldn't deal with an irrational (actually transcendental) number, but now they are doing something transcendentally irrational.

[suziedemocrat]

39. One more reason I've got to get the F*ck out of this state!! Ugh!!!

[DrGonzoLives]

29. I DARE this to stand up in court

Go ahead and pass it - it will be struck down within days.

[thinkingwoman]

30. you are correct

but this is so frustrating.

We deserve better out of our elected officials. This bill shouldn't even be printed on paper. It's disgusting.

[DrGonzoLives]

31. I'm not denying that

But the idea that this is even remotely constitutional is laughable.

[thinkingwoman]

32. Yeah, I know

In fact, I was screaming that at the computer this morning.

sigh.

Can you imagine the look on a judge's face asked to rule on why a single woman who gets pregnant via in-vitro is a criminal but the single crack ho down the street who got pregnant trading sexual favors for her next high is not?

priceless. :eyes:

[Bjornsdotter]

33. Just wanted to let you know...

...that this story was on the local news in Chicago this morning. It aired on channel 7 ABC this morning around 6:20 AM,so it is slowly getting out there.

[kilaana]

35. WTF?

This is an outrage! The part I find most appalling is the bit about unmarried couples having to complete a satisfactory assessment, including complete background checks, and (in Section 12-b-10 of the proposed legislation):

"A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents, include a description of individual participation in faith-based or church activities, hobbies, and other interests."

I can't imagine any of this would ever hold up in court... but what is the best way to protest this before it goes any further??

[HoosierClarkie]

36. It has been dropped!

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=3942770

:)

[Voltaire]

37. Thats a good thing

My wife was ready to kill. We need to keep an eye on it though, lest they stick it in with something else.

[IndianaGreen]

38. Congratulations to all that went to bat for us!

Congratulations to all DUers, Dailykos, et al posters and bloggers for the tremendous effort they put out to bring to light what would have been an obscure committe vote.

I got a copy of an e-mail from the NUVO reporter that leaked this, and she says that her sources tell her that the senators and reps were flooded with thousands of phone calls and e-mails

I am sure the cockroaches will try again some other time, but not this time.

This shows once again that GLBT rights and women's rights must be defended by all of us. To deny one basic rights to one group of people is to deny them to all of us!

Here is the e-mail by the NUVO reporter this:

From: "Laura McPhee"

WE DID IT!!!!!!!!!!

This is how democracy is supposed to work kids! They step over the line
and we push them back. Make sure you give the biggest congratulations to
everyone on the listserv -- my sources tell me that our senators and reps
were flooded with thousands of phone calls and emails.

YES!!!

Laura :)