Restricting fertility? (Updated)

Found this on the LiveJournal of a friend who’s working in the Middle East for a couple of years so he’s getting news from more varied sources than most Americans.

Indiana bill would limit reproduction procedures for gays, singles [1]

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.

UPDATE (6 Oct): See my last comment. They dropped this puppy like the rotten potato it is.

[The bill] would require “intended parents” to be married to each other and says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana president Betty Cockrum said the legislation is chilling and represents government intrusion on a person’s private life.

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

Say what? And the atheists, and other non-“Right kind of Christians” just deal? Would they count monthly Full Moon rituals as regular faith-based activity? Yeah, right.

I can see it now. “Excuse me, ma’am, just what are you planning on using that turkey baster for? Just checking, ma’am.” ๐Ÿ˜‰

FTR, I’ve been a both a single and married parent. My ex moved when I was pregnant with our second, to get established in a new state and then I’d join him (I was the one with the job and therefor the health insurance), but it never worked out that way so I raised my youngest as a single mom for 5 years until I met my current husband. Yes, it’s easier with two, and it’s easier if at least one parent is the same gender as the child, but legislation like this bothers me.

6 comments

It’s a political ploy. (none / 0)

Total bilge.

Especially since the people who use “medical procedures” to produce their children are generally the ones who have the money to afford to support said children, no matter what their marital status or sexual orientation.

And I know several gay people of both sexes who produced their offspring the usual way – the ones who are totally unable to function with the opposite sex are few and far between, after all.

What’s to be done about them?

I have a daughter who refuses to even consider marrying the father of her (unborn) child. ย She’s not worried about him abandoning the kid (he has one from a previous relationship that he deals well with), but she says she’s not going to legally tie herself to a flake, no matter how sweet he is.

She’s a better mother than most of the married women I know. ย And I would have said so when she was three.

What about her?

I think the whole thing is a political ploy to keep the conservative voters happy. ย I doubt it will withstand a court test, even if it passes.

by loggersbrat on Wed Oct 5th, 2005 at 10:23:21 PDT

grandstand (none / 0)

seems like a PR event for the base rather than anything that would survive judicial review.

that said…remind me not to move to indiana anytime soon. ย 

We are being saved for hope.

Romans 8:24a

by martinguerre on Wed Oct 5th, 2005 at 10:30:57 PDT

My wife is far too generous and decent a woman ๐Ÿ˜‰ (none / 0)

Yeah, yeah, I’m biased. ๐Ÿ™‚ I’m also posting from work, so I may have missed something, but…

This is beyond the pale. To call it obscene is an insult to obscenity. This bill is such a blatant, fundamental violation of the most basic rights provided by the Constitution (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Hello?) that it boggles the mind that even Republicans could vomit this thing out.

This bill is so blatantly theocratic that even I am shocked. The idea that an infertile couple would have to register their religion with the government to receive permission to get artificial insemination…words fail me.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the face of the enemy. This is what the theofascist right really wants: total control of everyone not them, in an effort to reeducate (a word I use judiciously, I assure you), marginalize, or destroy the Other. And they just proved it, beyond any reasonable doubt.

Roland X
“The trouble with Scotland is that it’s full of Scots! … If we can’t get them out, we’ll breed them out.” — Edward the Longshanks, Braveheart

by Roland X on Wed Oct 5th, 2005 at 11:25:42 PDT

Catch 22 (none / 0)

You’re a catholic – so you qualify – but if you’re a catholic you’re not allowed to do it anyway.

by Febble on Wed Oct 5th, 2005 at 12:22:43 PDT

Don’t mince words, dear (none / 0)

Tell us what you really think. ๐Ÿ˜‰

Morgan ย /|\
aka Mrs. Roland X

by Morgan on Wed Oct 5th, 2005 at 12:40:35 PDT

They dropped it. (none / 0)

Bill To Limit Reproduction Options For Gays, Singles Dropped [2]
Sponsor: Issue Became ‘More Complex Than Anticipated’

Like many others, I’m guessing that “complex” means “too many people noticed and complained.” ๐Ÿ™‚

by Morgan on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 11:25:14 PDT


[1] Originally linked to http://www.southernvoice.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=2752
[2] Originally linked to http://www.theindychannel.com/news/5063396/detail.html

Leave a Reply

Due to excessive spambots, you must be logged in to post a comment. Guests may log in with username and password *guest*.

AWSOM Powered