Stanger than Fiction?

Atwoods_taleAs seen on Ariel Gore’s site.

 

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."

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Stanger than Fiction?

  1. Arrrgh! My mom was married twice. My dad was an alcoholic who left with an 18 yr old. My step dad was an alcoholic who happily abused us for over a decade. I’m not married to my Beloved, father of my children, but he’s a great father and does right by all of us!

    Damn Republicans! Why can’t they just keep their noses out of everyone else’s marriage & reproduction choices? They’re so all about close-minded blanket statements on issues, black or white … how about a new legislation banning Republican reproduction?

    (I don’t hate Republicans–just their sorry excuses for laws)

  2. You left an interesting comment on my blog that I thought I should respond to and here it comes.

    I want to apologize up front about this comment here not being on target for the discussion of this post. Please feel free to delete it.

    Here goes:

    No, I see God as something more complex, and more simple than that.

    From our way of looking at things he is as real as anything we see, or know.

    But I think the reality is more amazing. I think God is a being that encompasses a reality that we can not, nor ever, understand.

    There is a couple of ways to think about it.

    First, let us look at the physical reality we understand. There are three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. In the dimension of time we are moving along at a pace that is based on the physics of chemical and molecular interaction.

    Considering that the material that makes up the universe we know is an expression of elements (quarks) that interact with each other in 11 dimensions, I would have to start with the concept that the universe has at least that many dimensions.

    So, let us accept the possibility that the true universe has eleven dimensions though we are constrained to four. Let us accept the possibility that the dimensions that we have trouble interacting with are what we would determine as spiritual dimensions. There is now a location for Heaven and Hell.

    Now consider that perhaps one of those dimensions is an added dimension of time. That for the inhabitants of Heaven time is not linear but a plain. That would free the inhabitants of Heaven from being pulled along in the direction of entropy as we are. They could “walk” along side us to experience time as we do, they could race ahead, travel backward, or perpendicular. From this point of view all of creation is open to observation. Every moment. If that is true then the crucifixion could be observed for an infinite length of “time”. At this point the way we view time breaks down.

    Now, consider that if this is all an artifact, a creation, then the creator had to place His creation somewhere. That would imply an outside to all of these dimensions. It may be that God is greater than the dimensions of even Heaven. That Heaven is an expression of who He is. That to God time is not a plain, but a space, having at least three dimensions. From that idea we might surmise that all of creation is held as a complete thing, a four (or 12) dimensional whole.

    This would also make the concept of a trinity easier to grasp. That he is one, yet three.

    Imagine this. You are a three dimensional being, sitting in front of a computer screen. I am not really a three dimensional person, but am a software program that spouts out all this strange stuff, and maybe am even intelligent, but all of my experience, all that I really am or know, is on this screen that you are looking at.

    Now you raise your hand. It is a three dimensional object, with five digits, but I am completely unaware of it being near the computer screen because all that I know is here, on the SURFACE of this screen.

    You touch the screen. And because I am “alive” I can suddenly see you, at least your finger tip. I know you are there because you have interacted with my world. I am amazed because I can surmise that there must be a reality beyond my two dimensional one.

    Now you extend another finger, and a third. I can see the similarity between the three finger tips. I can discern that they are working together. I cannot imagine what it is like for them to be three dimensional, but I know that they are somehow working together and that there are indeed one.
    This is a metaphor for the trinity, but it is only a metaphor. Just as if I was truly two dimensional I could not understand a three dimensional reality, I would argue that as a three dimensional being (physically) I can discern a greater reality. I know it is real, but I have no clear concept of its true nature. I am unequipped to do so.

    But someday I will go beyond the surface of the screen, and I will walk around in a greater realm, and I will be able to see and touch, and interact with a reality than can only be guessed at.

    He is not the metaphor. But my understanding of Him at this point is. That does not make Him less real. In fact, he is more real than I.

    Sorry to take up so much space! Again, feel free to delete it. It won’t hurt my feelings at all since I know I have probably stepped over the lines of a polite reply.

    C.S.

  3. Thank you.

    I was actually thinking more of our perceptions being metaphorical. Perhaps I phrased my query imprecisely. But, I do appreciate your response.

    It was stimulating and enjoyable.

  4. Will they stop at nothing until all of our rights are gone? We can’t let their misguided notions of morality dictate for all of us.

    First they came for the Jews
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for the Communists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left
    to speak out for me.
    ~~~Pastor Martin Niemöller

  5. I can’t imagine all the implications of such a law. Does that mean that all children born to unmarried mothers would be put up for adoption? It could solve the custody rights of divorced egg and sperm donors fighting over the rights to frozen embryos!! If a mother left the state to avoid losing her child would she be a fugitive from justice? Sheeesh.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s