"Unauthorized reproduction"

[DeeBye]

http://www.nuvo.net/archive/2005/10/05/una...production.html

“Unauthorized reproduction”
Law requires marriage for motherhood
Laura McPhee

Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant “by means other than sexual intercourse.”

According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother through assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation and egg donation must first file for a “petition for parentage” in their local county probate court.

Only women who are married will be considered for the “gestational certificate” that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the pregnancy. Further, the “gestational certificate” will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents.

As 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.”

The change in Indiana law to require marriage as a condition for motherhood and criminalizing “unauthorized reproduction” was introduced at a summer meeting of the Indiana General Assembly’s Health Finance Commission on Sept. 29 and a final version of the bill will come up for a vote at the next meeting at the end of this month.

Republican Sen. Patricia Miller is both the Health Finance Commission chair and the sponsor of the bill. She believes the new law will protect children in the state of Indiana and make parenting laws more explicit.

According to Miller, the laws prohibiting surrogacy in the state of Indiana are currently too vague and unenforceable, and that is the purpose of the new legislation.

“But it’s not just surrogacy,” Miller told NUVO. “The law is vague on all types of extraordinary types of infertility treatment, and we wanted to address that as well.

“Ordinary treatment would be the mother’s egg and the father’s sperm. But now there are a lot of extraordinary things that raise issues of who has legal rights as parents,” she explained when asked what she considers “extraordinary” infertility treatment.

Miller believes the requirement of marriage for parenting is for the benefit of the children that result from infertility treatments.

“We did want to address the issue of whether or not the law should allow single people to be parents. Studies have shown that a child raised by both parents — a mother and a father — do better. So, we do want to have laws that protect the children,” she explained.

When asked specifically if she believes marriage should be a requirement for motherhood, and if that is part of the bill’s intention, Miller responded, “Yes. Yes, I do.”

http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/co.../hfco.html

Either this is a joke or the governing people that are sponsoring this legislation are a bunch of idiots.

[Occhidiangela]

http://www.nuvo.net/archive/2005/10/05/una...production.html
http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/co.../hfco.html

Either this is a joke or the governing people that are sponsoring this legislation are a bunch of idiots.
[right][snapback]91197[/snapback][/right]

I am speechless.

This is the most important thing for Indianans to worry about? In vitro fertilization among 'unmarried women?' Remarkable. The "For the children appeal" has mutated once again as an excuse to put the State's nose into the lives of the citizens.

While I agree with the general premise that one should marry and then have children, and raise them as a team, this bill seems to be aimed at well to do people who fight with one another over who gets the eggs and sperm they have on ice when they divorce one another for the usual "I am tired of him/her reasons, for adultery, for "his socks don't match" et cetera.

I don't see this helping the middle income and poor folks at all, though at least it doesn't interfere with their lives directly, from what the article reveals.

Occhi

[Doc]

This is to combat unwed welfare mothers and gay couples wanting children. Since gay folks can't legally get married in that state, they wouldn't legally be able to have children either.

And something must be done about the welfare mothers. There are girls here in my own state getting knocked up as early as humanly possible because it means a free check for about $1250.00 on average per month, plus a considerable sum of funds from WIC and EBT. (Foodstamps) There are some idiots out there telling young girls that this is a viable employment strategy. Get knocked up and stay knocked up. Each additional child nets in a few hundred dollars more a month.

I dunno about Indiana, but here it's getting out of hand. Because of how the law works, if a girl gets knocked up while below 18, she gets disabled child status for her self and gets additional funds, several hundred dollars worth, from SSI / SS.

[Jeunemaitre]

http://www.nuvo.net/archive/2005/10/05/una...production.html
http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/co.../hfco.html

Either this is a joke or the governing people that are sponsoring this legislation are a bunch of idiots.
[right][snapback]91197[/snapback][/right]

I started typing out a long post listing all the things that offended me about this proposal, but then I realized that this is just plain ridiculous. The proposal would restrict the ability of certain physicians to accept patients seeking assisted reproductive services. Being someone whose sought such services, there is already a huge barrier for people seeking these services. Most insurrance policies carry no benefits for assisted reproductive services, and many flex-spending programs do not include these services a qualifying expenses. At a cost of about $10k per cycle of ivf (with success rates on the first cycle between 50% and 80% depending on the clinic and couple), or even for couples or women who seek only artificial insemination at half the cost, this is a significant investment for most people.

Let the legislature stay involved in the practice of law, and let them not be involved in the practice of medicine. They have the duty to evaluate applicants for adoption because they seek to receive a child which is in the care of the state. They do not have a duty to evaluate the fitness of a patient or pateints seeking to create life.

[Rhydderch Hael]

I'm curious: if bastardy is "unauthorized reproduction", then what is adultery? "Copyright infringement"?

[Doc]

I'm curious: if bastardy is "unauthorized reproduction", then what is adultery? "Copyright infringement"?
[right][snapback]91218[/snapback][/right]

That's pretty funny.

[jahcs]

Let the legislature stay involved in the practice of law, and let them not be involved in the practice of medicine.  They have the duty to evaluate applicants for adoption because they seek to receive a child which is in the care of the state.  They do not have a duty to evaluate the fitness of a patient or pateints seeking to create life.
[right][snapback]91217[/snapback][/right]

This law looks more to me like moral legislation than medical.

What's next, a law preventing more than 1 kid per $24,000 of income?

They should sell this kind of legislation by the roll at the grocery store.

[Bun-Bun]

I'm curious: if bastardy is "unauthorized reproduction", then what is adultery? "Copyright infringement"?
[right][snapback]91218[/snapback][/right]

Only if you unlock a chastity belt. Then you're breaking the DRM (Digital Reproduction Management) and that's a violation of the Digital Millennium Copulation Act.

[Occhidiangela]

They do not have a duty to evaluate the fitness of a patient or pateints seeking to create life.
[right][snapback]91217[/snapback][/right]

And since they are not doing this rigorous checking on all persons making babies out of wedlock, equal protection under the law is being violated, if we take your assessment of the situation.

I still think this is an attempt to prevent court cases by the moderately well off who squabble over in vitro assets . . . a Yuppy civil matter, as I see it.

PS My sister in law and her first hubby went through 4 in vitro before their first was born. It was 'spensive. :(

Occhi

[kandrathe]

I dug into the governments meeting minutes a little deeper and it appears less sinister. The issue being discussed was related to the transfer of parental rights from a surrogate mother impregnated to the eventual "adoptive parents". Maybe even issues like preventing baby farming by rich infertile couples exploiting poor women. It looks like they are trying to update their adoption laws to better accomodate advances in reproductive technologies.

Dr. John Jarrett distributed and reviewed materials dealing with minimum standards, reimbursements for egg donation, and various consent forms used for procedures performed by the Jarrett Infertility Group, including embryo preservation and donation. (See Exhibit 3.)  These consent forms address fees, non-disclosure of anonymous donors, and legal parentage issues. Dr. Jarrett reported that no state requires adherence to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) guidelines, but that some major insurance companies have started requiring compliance. Dr. Jarrett reported that oocyte-sharing procedures are not done by the Jarrett Fertility Group for ethical reasons. The Jarrett Fertility Group also does not destroy embryos.

Dr. James Donahue, a reproductive endocrinologist, introduced himself. (See Exhibit 4.) Dr. Donahue has recently completed a master's degree in Clinical Human Embryology from the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom (UK). He commented that, in his opinion, current Indiana statutes are ambiguous with regard to surrogacy issues and the donation of embryos (e.g., is this an adoption?). He said that there is a medical justification for surrogacy, and he reviewed circumstances when surrogacy might be considered an option. Dr. Donahue stated that patients desire assistive reproductive technology for various reasons and that good things come from this technology. Dr. Donahue briefly reviewed the UK licensing and regulatory requirements. The main difference is that the UK has a licensing body called the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA). The HFEA issues a license to a party referred to as the "Person Responsible" who is defined as the individual under whose supervision the authorized activities are to be carried out. The HFEA "Code of Practice, 6 Edition," which regulates any research or treatment which involves the creation, keeping, and use of human embryos outside the body, or storage or donation of human eggs and sperm in the UK, was supplied to the Commission staff and is available upon request. (See Exhibit 5.) Dr. Donahue emphasized that regulation should define the rights of the parents with regard to any potential child and protect the welfare of the child that may result from the use of the technology. He also reported that federal law mandates reporting to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which is available online. The data available is two to three years old and does not include sufficient information to determine the number of surrogacy cases. Dr. Donahue recommended that the General Assembly should consider re-evaluation of the Indiana surrogacy statute, develop clear guidelines, and include a mechanism to ensure compliance.

Mr. Steven Kirsh, J.D., is an attorney specializing in adoption cases. He commented that he does not do surrogacy work and is not working on the current case in the news. (See Exhibit 6.) Mr. Kirsh stated that there are not enough children available for adoption. Additionally, some individuals want a biological link to their children. In this regard, medical technology that can provide the biological link has outpaced laws. (See Exhibit 6.) The children that result from the application of assistive reproductive technology services (ARTS) should be entitled to protection under the law. Current adoption laws require screening of potential parents and home visits.
Counseling is also required for parents wishing to adopt and for biological parents terminating their parental rights. Mr. Kirsh commented that Indiana similarly needs laws governing ARTS that define the legal parents, who can participate in these procedures, and that also protect the best interests of the child. He said there are additional questions with regard to the custody of cryopreserved embryos and gametes. 

Mr. Kirsh reported that Indiana statutes are clear that surrogacy contracts are not enforceable. He defined a surrogate mother as potentially having a biologic link to the child. Mr. Kirsh commented that surrogates have decided in the past not to relinquish custody of the child and that the same requirements of other ARTS procedures should apply to surrogacy. He then defined a gestational carrier, as an individual who has no biologic connection to the child that fills a need allowing a woman who cannot carry a baby to term to have a biological child. Mr. Kirsh stated that a comprehensive statutory scheme is essential. It should include mandatory contract provisions that must be included, mandatory home studies and counseling, and remedies for noncompliance and court supervision. He said that an Indiana statute could be based upon the Uniform Parentage Act or examples from other states that have enacted legislation. Mr. Kirsh concluded by saying that some states have no legislation, some have bans, but that without legislation, the courts will determine practice through the application of case law.

[Occhidiangela]

I dug into the governments meeting minutes a little deeper and it appears less sinister.  The issue being discussed was related to the transfer of parental rights from a surrogate mother impregnated to the eventual "adoptive parents".  Maybe even issues like preventing baby farming by rich infertile couples exploiting poor women.  It looks like they are trying to update their adoption laws to better accomodate advances in reproductive technologies.
[right][snapback]91277[/snapback][/right]

Thank you for the elaboration, it makes a bit more sense, I suppose. :blink:

Occhi

[DeeBye]

I'm curious: if bastardy is "unauthorized reproduction", then what is adultery? "Copyright infringement"?
[right][snapback]91218[/snapback][/right]

That was great :lol:

[whyBish]

It was 'spensive.  :(

Occhi
[right][snapback]91262[/snapback][/right]

The govt. over here has introduced funding for it this year. Not sure the exact details but I think up to three sessions are covered. (Not sure if this is per-person-per-lifetime or per-couple-per lifetime ;) )

[Jeunemaitre]

And since they are not doing this rigorous checking on all persons making babies out of wedlock, equal protection under the law is being violated, if we take your assessment of the situation.
Occhi
[right][snapback]91262[/snapback][/right]

That's an interesting point Occhi, I hadn't considered an equal protection argument on behalf of the unconceived child, but then again, unconceived children don't come to mind too often outside of equal protection arguments. Maybe I'm just sensitive because if something like this proposal had passed in my state of residence, the wife and I would be subject to review, and I have something against being judged on my fitness (never liked those presidential physical fitness challenge things in school either).

[Occhidiangela]

That's an interesting point Occhi, I hadn't considered an equal protection argument on behalf of the unconceived child, but then again, unconceived children don't come to mind too often outside of equal protection arguments.  Maybe I'm just sensitive because if something like this proposal had passed in my state of residence, the wife and I would be subject to review, and I have something against being judged on my fitness (never liked those presidential physical fitness challenge things in school either).
[right][snapback]91324[/snapback][/right]

I was more aiming at the equal protection issue in terms of how unequal differing classes of prospective parents were to be treated, what with those who can afford in vitro being singled out for special legislation. The "screwing in the back of the pick up truck with someone you just met while clubbing" sorts who, out of wedlock, create impregnated women are not given such rigorous tests of fitness as parents, eh?

See my previous remarks on what I think may be going on here: clearing up a problem area vis a vis ownership of in vitro products that stable married couples won't tend to get into.

Occhi