unauthorized reproduction

http://www.boomantribune.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2005/10/3/223530/406

Confirmed now in three separate articles. Thanks to svmadelyn for finding all of these.

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2068
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2005/10/04/holy-shit-indiana/
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/12813691.htm


From the first article:

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."

You know.

About that paragraph? I mean, the whole article is an atrocity against pretty much every single thing I believe in. But.

Unauthorized reproduction.

Does anyone, besides me, who fucked and gave birth well outside the holy bonds of matrimony, just have to stop and read that one again? Just to *see* if you read it right the first time? Just to take it in a second, and mull all the ways that can be interpreted. All the ways that it can be *used*.

You know, I don't think this can be passed, even in Bush's America. But what worries me? Is that it's been *drafted*.

I wonder if single parents are next.

Comments

[copracat]

And I used to laugh at what some of those crusty old SF authors dreamed up about the future of the US, the future dated now.

[xoverau.livejournal.com]

Ye-ah, that'll work. *rolls eyes*

I try to remind myself that there are all manner of whackjob ideas drafted, including that one for using Gay Gas on the enemy, and very few of them get more than snickers when they come up for a vote.

[picara.livejournal.com]

Here's another post on it:

http://www.pandagon.net/archives/2005/10/put_down_that_t.html

[beet]

This is horrifying. Just... Gah!
Thanks for passing the word along.

[svilleficrecs.livejournal.com]

And does the producer of the seed get a misdemeanor?

[freakily-sticky.livejournal.com]

i... i... just. well. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! i mean, it shouldn't be funny, but it is so fucking *retarded*. so, people who are married-- no. wait. a heterosexual married couple, wherein one of the two partners is infertile, is now not allowed to explore artificial means of having children? i'm guessing that this was drafted to keep lesbians from giving birth. because, obviously, gayness breeds gayness. or something. *rolls eyes* but no shit single mothers will be next. i wonder if at some point a law will be drafted that states that only fertile heterosexuals are allowed to marry. which will then be amended to fertile heterosexuals being required to marry. and then we'll have arranged marriages or something, to keep poor people from getting married to wealthy people. i wonder if he would be able to get it extended to fertile, white, property-owning heterosexuals being allowed to marry. *busts gut*

[fyrdrakken]

Oh, married couples are fine -- so long as they pass what is apparently the same vetting process one must go through to become an adoptive parent, and which includes looking up finances and criminal background and lifestyle and motherfucking church attendance. And it only applies to married couples who need sperm and egg donations (which I think is how they were planning to justify it as being like adoption law) -- the ones who use their own genetic material aren't touched by the law.

In any case, the bill was withdrawn due to the amount of shit coming down on the Senator who proposed it. But the scariest thing yet I saw was reading someone's suggestion that this unconstitutional law was deliberately drafted to conflict with Griswold v. the State of Connecticut (the Supreme Court decision that made contraception legal) and give the Bush-appointees-including SC to strike it down and ban contraception again.

[niqaeli]

I mentioned this to my boyfriend. My boyfriend made a valid point... the politicians drafting this don't actually want it. They want the votes that drafting it will get them.

As drafted, there is not a chance in hell it's going to get through. There are, however, ways they could have drafted it that it might at least have had a chance. The politicians are just looking for a way to get votes. That's all they're ever looking for.

It's appalling that they're even drafting it, even if they don't intend it ever to get through... but politics and those who play them professionally usually are.

[akacat]

"who knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction procedure"

That's the key point. And with the (admittedly enourmous) exception of requiring heterosexual marriage, the rest of the points are the same as what's required to adopt.

If, say, an insurance company was to require this (again, *except* for the straight marriage part) I'd support it.

But I suspect this is actually intended to cut off all the ways that a gay couple might have children. (Does Indiana bar gay couples from adopting? I'm just guessing that it does.)

[fyrdrakken]

Mind you, at the end of the above-linked Feministe post it is pointed out how neatly the marriage requirement dovetails with their recent ban on gay marriage. Yeah, I don't know if the state allows non-married or gay couples to adopt, but somehow I wouldn't be surprised if one or both are banned. (Or were to be banned in the other segment of the bill, that one article mentioned in passing but that I haven't seen explained beyond that it clears up some supposed irregularities in adoption and surrogate motherhood.)

[justabi.livejournal.com]

This is seriously, seriously insane. I mean, people joke that you need a license to get a dog but anyone can have a kid, but that's a joke.

[cjandre.livejournal.com]

I had to follow all the links because i couldn't believe it.

My god.

I don't know anyone in Indiana - but my great fear is that Virginia will take it up next.

Yes, my state is that backwards at times.

What can we do?

[brownbetty]

Does this mean turkey basters are illegal in that state? I mean, its ridiculous in almost equal measure with the appalling.

[luthorienne.livejournal.com]

Who the hell is supposed to authorize it?

[mona1347.livejournal.com]

I'm literally sick to my stomach right now.

O_O

[linzeestyle.livejournal.com]

What scares me about that isn't so much the bill, because as someone else said, the way it's worded makes it so there is no way in hell it will pass. If it did, even Bush's new crazy-neocon Supreme Court would probably have to strike it down as a violation of privacy. What scares me is that whoever introduced it obviously did so to generate votes. Which means enough people out there who find this a good idea as to be worth pandering to in a political setting. That, right there? Is scary.

People are idiots. Anyone that touts "appealing to the masses" as a good political move (and this is usually the argument given by those people saying gays are evil and religion should be taught in schools) should keep that in mind.

Linzee

[meret.livejournal.com]

Bush is now wanting to get the law prohibiting the regular military from engaging in law enforcement action on US soil repealed.

[boji.livejournal.com]

Lurked on in...

Just wondering, could the draft of this law have anything to do with the current administrations stance on stem cell research? Can un-used fertilised embryos created by IVF treatment currently be turned over to medical science? And doesn't/wouldn't that go against the current administrations political/religious... er doctrine?

[boji.livejournal.com]

God am I happy I live in Europe

[fyrdrakken]

Ranting in my own LJ post for today. The good news is that the wench of a Senator who proposed it withdrew the bill, probably due to the amount of flack she's been getting over it.