Posted on 10/05/2005 12:08:20 PM PDT by balch3
An interim legislative committee is considering a bill that would prohibit gays, lesbians and single people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child.
Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, said state law does not have regulations on assisted reproduction and should have similar requirements for adoption in Indiana.
"If we're going to try to put Indiana on the map, I wouldn't go this route," said Betty Cockrum, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana. "It feels pretty chilling. It is governmental intrusion into a very private part of our lives."
Miller acknowledged that the legislation would be "enormously controversial."
"Our statutes are nearly silent on all this. You can think of guidelines, but when you put it on paper it becomes different," she told The Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne for a story Tuesday.
Miller is chairwoman of the Health Finance Commission, a panel of lawmakers that will vote Oct. 20 on whether to recommend the legislation to the full general assembly.
The bill 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.
It then requires "intended parents" to be married to each other and says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.
A doctor cannot begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child being born until the intended parents have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill. The assessment is similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana.
The required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans and criminal history checks. Description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents also is required, including 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 clarified 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, for example, 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.
Ken Falk, legal director for the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, said his office began hearing about the bill Friday, a day after the rough draft was discussed by the Health Finance Commission.
He said it sets up a clear discrimination that would be difficult to uphold in court, and considers the bill to be unique nationally.
"My question is, what is the danger that we are legislating against? Are we saying that only married persons should be able to be parents, which is certainly a slap in the face to many same-sex couples but also to many who do not have a partner but have undertaken being a parent," Falk said.
Miller said the state often reacted to problems and that she wanted to be proactive on this issue.
"We're not trying to stop people from having kids; we're just trying to find some guidelines," she said.
She acknowledged such a law would bar 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."
Mods please note: My headline doesn't match the one in the article. This is inadvertent. I originally tried to post it from the Indianapolis Star, which used that headline, but it was blocked, so I used the same article from the South Bend paper and forgot to change the headline.
Mods please note: My headline doesn't match the one in the article. This is inadvertent. I originally tried to post it from the Indianapolis Star, which used that headline, but it was blocked, so I used the same article from the South Bend paper and forgot to change the headline.
Good for him!
Big government dictating who gets to breed. It's fine as long as your party is making the rules. What if some well-meaning legislator decides to extend it to all childbirth services? Hey, it's 'for the children', isn't it?
Big Government Conservatism at it's worst.....
Stupid stupid idea.
I join whatever movement is not stupid, I don't want to just be equal and opposite stupid. Get the law out of the bedrooms and personal lives of people. Period.
Homosexual Agenda PLUS Moral Absolutes Ping.
No time to comment. Good news. Some people don't like it. Too bad. Moral relativism=destruction of human civilization.
Freepmail me AND DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off the H.A. pinglist, and ME ONLY if you want on/off the M.A. pinglist.
A different Sen. Miller - good for her.
George Orwell ping.
It would be good if the Moral Absolutes Pingees were included in the "to" box.... See above!
Why would an unmarried person, regardless of their sexual persuasion, want to become a parent in the first place?
If you've actually read and understood much of George Orwell's writings, you'd know on which side of this issue he'd place himself.
Hate to say it, but I'm with the blood-dripping murderers at Planned Parenthood on this one. Until the state starts requiring a license to have children, they have no business passing such legislation.
What about if insurance - both public and private are reimbursing for these services? Still think in vitro for singles is a good thing?
I know plenty of single moms who don't want to get married. They haven't found the right man and decided they wanted to have children anyway before they get too old to have them. No problem with that I say.
This is really, really stupid. Big government stupid.
Moral behavior, not by choice, but rather enforced by the rule of law is part of what people left the old country to get away from.
Separation of church and state. A good idea then and now.
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.