A controversial proposed bill to prohibit gays, lesbians and single people from using medical procedures to become pregnant has been dropped by its legislative sponsor.
State Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, issued a one-sentence statement this afternoon saying: “The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission.”
More complex than anticipated? Why, it was pretty clear: We don’t want them people havin’ childrens.
{ 11 comments }
That sure was quick, huh?
Good move. Now she can devote her time to concocting some less complex, more constitutional psychotic hate law.
and public polling on gay parents shoots up 10 points…
That’s too bad; I’ll bet that all the pre-orders for single-colored robes have to be cancelled now.
So, if ya’ll had to make a wild guess, how many things, aww heck – no need for specific numbers, just roughly what percentage of stuff in Pat’s life would you say becomes “more complex than anticipated”?
Parts of the bill are foul. But in the specific situation where donor egg or sperm is needed, and the parenthood of the donor is voided, I think they’ve every right to enforce a similar screening to adoption. And to ban the technique from being used in some circumstances. Children – by default – have the right to support from both parents, to contact with them and for them to take parental responsibility. A law has to be activated for these rights to be removed, this is exceptional and I don’t think it should happen lightly.
Yes, I do think that lesbians and single people should be prevented from accessing assisted reproduction, with donor sperm (or eggs) of the sort which voids the legal parenthood of the biological father (or mother). I think there needs to be some sort of justification for legally removing one set of parental responsibilies. I don’t think this should happen without screening, particularly as the child isn’t a party to the act which removes some of their rights.
Shoot… I was hoping to have to sew a little gold star on my jacket since I didn’t meet the requirements for her master plan. Or, maybe a red “C” for cohabitation since Alice and I are homeowners, but “living in sin.”
What she means is I got pissed and threatened to come down to Indianapolis and personally punch her in the Alcock’s canal.
And she might’ve gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids
Looks like Indiana’s Pat Miller has backed off her attempts to legislate intrauterine government implants for infertile couples and single women…
The point here is that two lesbians will be two parents for the child, which should satisfy your rigid binary parent requirement. Sperm donors voluntarily sign away their parenting rights out of respect for the child’s actual parents – that’s your justification. They provide the genetic puzzle piece the lesbians need, no more.
It seems like you don’t think the lesbians can be effective parents on their own?
I’m not sure where you’re getting your information that the use of donor sperm “voids” parental rights of the donor. It doesn’t.
When I donated eggs, I had to terminate my parental rights, just as I would have had I given up a child for adoption. I would imagine it’s the same with donated sperm. And any child born to a marriage is presumed by the law to be a child of that marriage, so married couples wouldn’t have the same kind of adoption issues that would come up with an unmarried or same-sex couple.
Comments on this entry are closed.