Via Feministing and Booman Tribune, this bill gives me one more reason to be embarrassed about my home state, and very worried about the future of Hoosier women’s reproductive rights (like me–duh), and the rights of same-sex couples trying to become parents.
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.”[…] (emphasis mine)
A little more info on the bill via The Journal Gazette (FortWayne.com).
[…]There are two parts to the draft legislation ““ the first dealing with some irregularities in central Indiana regarding surrogacy and adoptions. But the part of the bill raising eyebrows involves assisted reproduction.
It defines assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.
The bill then requires “intended parents” to be married to each other and specifically says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.
A doctor can’t begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child’s being born until the intended parents of the child have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill.
The assessment is very similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana.
Some of the required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, hobbies, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans, letter of reference and criminal history checks.
A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents is also required, including individual participation in faith-based or church activities.
The legislation appears to affect some married couples, although the rough draft is unclear at times. Miller said the draft will be cleaned up before a vote.
The bill does not apply to assisted reproduction in which the child is the genetic child of both of the intended parents ““ i.e., the sperm is from the father and the egg is from the mother.
But married couples that need one or the other would still have to go through an assessment process and establish parentage in a court.[…]
And Senator Patricia Miller’s defense–I guess–of the bill….
[…]”We’re not trying to stop people from having kids; we’re just trying to find some guidelines,” she said.
She did concede it would stop single people from using methods other than sexual intercourse but said “all the studies indicate the best environment for a child is to have a two-parent family ““ a mother and a father.”[…]
Hm. I wonder if this is the kind of thing Margaret Atwood would write about. (Jill over at Feministe has a little more on this.)
Ahhh, you beat me to the punch, P-A, I was just gathering articles for this one. Isn’t this the most insane bunch of crappola?
I keep hearing conservatives playing the ‘why ever would you think women’s rights are under attack by us’ card, as their fundamental right keeps slipping this sort of propositional crap through to be ‘considered’. While I’m quite positive it will tail-spin into oblivion, what’s the next ‘kinder, more gentle’ legislation they will try that might eventually make it through?
Who is electing these yahoo’s anyways? The American Taliban?
Damn! I’m so sorry Kim–we need telepathy or something :-) But if you have anymore info on this crazy-crap, then by all means whip them out, because I’m trying to find out more about this and the reactions of other politcians here in Indy. Oh, thank goodness Illinois is next door.
I commented on this at Media Girl, asking nine questions about this legislation, four of which were “Are they fucking nuts?!” That was hours agon, and my outrage has since moved to other example of misogynistic reproductive tyranny. Namely, this.
Pandagon links to it also, if you want to vent there as well.
I personally disagree with any artificial form of reproduction unless there is no other way of having a kid, I think it is selfish and if you want a kid that much adoption or fostering children is a better idea. That being said I would never want it to be banned, just my personal opinion.
However this disturbs me. Allowing other people to regulate how you have a child is terrifying. It will open up to allowing them to tell you how many children and then who. For some reason it reminded me of the movie fortress.
“Unauthorized Reproduction” is a frightening term.
*twitch*
*twitch*
soooo glad I moved to Wisconsin…
I wonder how the right will respond… illegal reproduction?!?
“I personally disagree with any artificial form of reproduction unless there is no other way of having a kid”
When does reproduction become artificial? I’m curious. Suppose you have a couple: wife fertile, husband infertile. Is it ‘artificial reproduction’ for the wife to conceive a baby through intercourse with her husband’s best friend, and then legally claim the baby as belonging to herself and her husband? Or how about if the husband’s best friend provides sperm in a cup, which the wife immediately turkey-bastes into her vagina? Or suppose the donor feels uncomfortable wanking in his best friend’s bathroom, and instead goes to a clinic, where a doctor then transfers the sperm into the wife?
Are these all cases of ‘artifical reproduction’? Or just the situation with the doctor? I was just wondering.
“I think it is selfish and if you want a kid that much adoption or fostering children is a better idea. ”
1. Why is it selfish for a woman with an infertile husband to want a baby that is genetically related to herself, but not selfish for a woman with a fertile husband to want a baby genetically related to herself? Why is it selfish for a lesbian to want a baby genetically related to herself, but not selfish for a straight woman to want a baby genetically related to herself?
Of course there are tons of children in need of adoption in the world, but it can’t ONLY be the infertile women and lesbians who are selfish for not adopting them. Either everyone with a genetically related baby is selfish, or “selfish” and “unselfish” are concepts that have nothing to do with the decision to give birth to, to adopt or to foster a child.
I was having a conversation once with some of my aunts and uncles, and they were discussing whether or not it’s a good idea for the government to regulate sexual behavior (they are mostly ministers and generally feel that society is going down the toilet). I reminded them that the government could come out with an agenda that they were totally not expecting, like maybe deciding that couples whose income is below a certain level shouldn’t be allowed to have sex without birth control. Of course, if there had been such a law back in the 1930s, none of my aunts and uncles would exist.
I thought I had made up a ridiculous, extreme example, but this proposal isn’t that far off from it.
Oh yes, we have wingnuts in Hoosier land! Afterall, it’s not like there’s anything else going on here: unemployment, lousy test scores in schools, “brain drain” as the best and brightest leave, declining city budgets, privatization screwing everything up just like Governor Mitch Daniels wants, more and more restrictive abortion laws, etc., etc.
I don’t give a rat’s ass who has kids. Miller is barking up the wrong tree: if a couple (forget their genders) can support IVF or similar treatments, they surely have enough money, love, desire to have kids, etc., to more than adequately care and raise the resulting children. I thought it was those unwanted kids or children brought up in poverty that were the main issues! Who knew it was the “unauthorized” children that were the main threats to society!
Oog – sorta like an inside-out Ender’s Game. I wonder if it’s occurred to them that they are encouraging adultery with this law.
Tell me if I’m being paranoid:
(b) The assessment must follow the normal practice for assessments in a domestic infant adoption procedure and must include the following information:
…
(2) The fertility history of the intended parents, including the pregnancy history and response to pregnancy losses of the woman.
Does this sound to anyone else like women who’ve had an abortion in their past will not be eligible for in vitro?
Also this part:
(8) A verification and evaluation of the intended parents’ marital
17 relationship, including:
18 (A) the shared values and interests between the individuals;
25 (10) A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents,
26 include a description of individual participation in faith-based or
27 church activities, hobbies, and other interests.
28 (11) The intended parents’ child rearing expectations and values.
Anyone else picturing an army of little Pat Robertsons? *shudder*
Ah, another case of rightwingers lying about science. “all the studies indicate the best environment for a child is to have a two-parent family ““ a mother and a father.” In fact, studies indicate the best environment for a child is 2 involved parents. Period. Parental gender does not show to be a relavent factor any peer-reviewed studies. Children of same-sex couples have been found to be less rigid in their beliefs about what girls and boys are capable of, but I guess that wouldn’t be considered a good thing to some.
I can’t believe people in my home state can be so stupid. Why on earth would we waste time and resources preventing the conception of wanted children while also wasting time and resources forcing the conception and birth of unwanted children?
Oh, silly me, I forgot. Women and their unique ability to create new life must be controlled. We can’t trust women.
Miller has cancelled the measure. Guess she wasn’t expecting the furor that she got.
The fact that they tried it, though, makes me wonder what else they’ve got up their sleeves.
Republican state Senator Patricia Miller’s law also smacks of Nazi Aryan looksism–she’s maliciously gunning for leftover ethnic minority women, hermaphrodites, disabled, or Munchausen by Proxy disfigured victims like me. My church-going white Catholic married heterosexual parents chemically burned me head to toe to impose spinsterhood on me when I only six. By the time I could afford all the needed plastic surgery, no willing single men were left. My one boyfriend ditched me for child hookers in the same Bangkok brothel Neil Bush frequents! Bitch Miller should target unfit married couples like my parents and pedophile Bushes! Given that the Bushes are determined to kill off America’s best young men in oil wars, single mother, gay couple and polygamous families are our only future.
Not so long ago when states rights were practically dictatorial it was common in some states to determine that poor and underage unmarried women should have their babies adopted out and further the women would be sterilized for the good of the state. I blame the patriarchy.
Pingback: The Evangelical Atheist » Blog Archive » Heaven House