Posted on 05/22/2012 2:01:18 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows
Karen Capato's fight for Social Security benefits for her children ended Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that children born through artificial insemination after a father's death don't qualify for survivor benefits.
(Excerpt) Read more at now.msn.com ...
The sheer audacity of some woman deciding to have kids, then demanding that WE pay for them - indefinitely - simply because she think's she's entitled to OUR taxdollars absolutely infuriates me.
U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously
WOW!
Welcome to the welfare system.
These babies were planned with her husband before he died of cancer.They should get the $$ before illegitimate kids do.
” U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously”
For people who are supposed to have a command of the Constitution they sure as hell show their ignorance, or in reality, their treason to the Constitution in favor of their party with every 5-4 decision.
Consider this:
1) A man has three adult children ages 10, 15, and 21.
2) A woman was 3 months pregnant with his 4th child at the time the father died.
Is the unborn child due a child’s share?
I don’t know the legal answer to that question, but I’m sure it has come up before a court sometime in the past. I suspect that is the precedent that the court was going by when they decided.
The difference between your outline and the posthumous fertilization is everybody knows at estate time there’s another kid on the way, so you can divide things up 5 ways and know there’s no surprises on the way. With the frozen sperm issue how long do you wait to part out the estate? A year? 2? Or do we just part it out and then if the wife has another kid with it 5 years from now everybody kick out a portion? Eventually when dividing up an estate you have to say “these are all the people getting a portion, and this is the time we’re doing the math and cutting checks, and if somebody new shows up tomorrow too late”.
They will, however, inherit the debts.
Thanks Slings and Arrows.
Have a great rest of the day, all. Oh, how I’ve squandered my day.
Some states have addressed this problem by changing the law so that if the wife is pregnant by decreased husband's sperm within three years of his death, then he is regarded as the father for social security purposes.
Posthumous births have been legally regarded as the proper heirs since about the 12th, 13th century. This is no different. Legally, there is no difference between the children.
Dejected plaintiffs leave the courthouse.
Who’d’ve thought sperm would have standing?
She does have one child who will be collecting benefits on her dead father's social security, and she will be collecting social security benefits as his widow. It is just the twins who wont get anything from social security.
This goes to show that when the government controls the “trust fund”, or “insurance” (which is what they euphemistically call social security as they cheerfully but relentlessly take your money and your employers’ money), it is not “insurance” - but something the government decides whether to give you or not.
She does have one child who will be collecting benefits on her dead father's social security, and she will be collecting social security benefits as his widow. It is just the twins who wont get anything from social security.
This goes to show that when the government controls the “trust fund”, or “insurance” (which is what they euphemistically call social security as they cheerfully but relentlessly take your money and your employers’ money), it is not “insurance” - but something the government decides whether to give you or not.
We received social security benefits that helped her to raise us while working part time until the youngest was school age. Thank God she banked most of it and used it to put the 3 of us through college.
So to answer your question, yes an unborn child is considered a beneficiary of a deceased parent's social security. I guess the court just looked at the stage, manner and timing of the conception.
The fact he banked frozen sperm implies he intended to father these children.
Had she been implanted a day before his death, what should have been the ruing? How about a day after his death? A week? A month? Year? Where do we draw the line? Interestingly, of the 3 of us, the son born after my Dad's death is his dead ringer in looks, personality, and mannerisms.
However, in recent negotiations it was agreed that the child is entitled to anything the sperm earned on its own following the donor’s death.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.