The Crime of "Unauthorized Reproduction"

Quote:

---

By 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 throu gh 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 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."

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 September 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 Senator 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 Sen. 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 thing s that raise
issues of who has legal rights as parents," she explained when asked
what she considers "extraordinary" infertility treatment.

Sen. 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, Sen. Miller responded, "Yes. Yes, I do."

---

A draft of the legislation is available on the Health Finance
Commission website

here
source

Quote:

---

Considering the plans to dump Roe vs Wade and ban Plan B, this is essentially an Unauthorized Sexual Intercourse bill.

Just a misdemeanor, understand, in their compassion they are distinguishing themselves from the Taliban by not recommending execution as penalty, for the woman, naturally, boys will be boys and all that.

But the most exciting element is that this could be another big step toward educating American women that their bodies are the property of the state, who shall be the sole determinant of how their organs of generation shall be utilized, to what end, and by whom.

---

Why is it that the party that is supposed to be for small government is the one that wishes to interfere in the most personal part of our lives?

Wow! And I thought the topic was going to be something about the unauthourized reproduction of data.

The government is just going too far.

I sincerely hope that gets tossed.

:shuriken:

Thats retarded.

Wtf?

What bullshit.

I've always had the contention that a woman on welfare would have to get the birth control shot but this is ridiculous. At least in the birth control case, they are trying get money from the state. The state should be able to have certain conditions.

This unauthorized reproduction shit is unconstitutional and I would love to hear from a conservative board member on this.

Tbh this sounds so bad it must be a joke.

Sad. Very sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

Sad. Very sad.

---

Something like this should have to go through referendum and not just pass through a smaller legislative body.

What a complete load of bollocks that is.

F'king outrageous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

Sad. Very sad.

---

Something like this should have to go through referendum and not just pass through a smaller legislative body.

---

Dictatorship anyone?

I totally agree with you on this Busyman - hopefully so do the members of the Indiana State Legislature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Wtf?

This unauthorized reproduction shit is unconstitutional ....

---

Can you tell me how.

I'm not saying it isn't, I just want to understand this whole "unconstitutional" thing. It crops up quite a lot here and can be confusing for non-USAers.

Somebody testing the waters or making a point, that's all-Democrats just did it by introducing a bill to re-institute the draft, which went down in flames.

Constitutionality is not the issue, as it would be a bank-shot off the (at best) questionable existence of privacy law, but it will never happen.

An attempt too illustrate absurdity by being absurd.

There you go, Busyman; I assume any of us Conservatives will do? :dry:

an attempt to illustrate absurdity by being absurd?

what?!

Quote:

---

Legislator drops controversial plan


By Mary Beth Schneider
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.”

Miller had asked that committee -- a panel of lawmakers who meet when the Indiana General Assembly is not in session to discuss possible legislation -- to recommend the bill to the full legislature when it meets in January.
Under her proposal, couples who need assistance to become pregnant -- such as through intrauterine insemination; the use of donor eggs, embryos and sperm; in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer or other medical means -- would have to be married to each other. In addition, married couples who needed donor sperm and eggs to become pregnant would be required to go through the same rigorous assessment process of their fitness to be parents as do people who adopt a child.
Miller had earlier acknowledged that the legislation would be "enormously controversial." It had already drawn fire from the Indiana Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood of Indiana.

---

source

Seems common sense prevailed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

"by means other than sexual intercourse."

---

---

it's a good thing for The Virgin Mary that she weren't from Indiana!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

it's a good thing for The Virgin Mary that she weren't from Indiana!

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Quality

Wonder how rape would have been covered?

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.”



It never ceases to amaze me. One would think one would think. Even if we would disregard the rights issues...........can you imagine a State Government equipped to deal with the type of enforcement it would take for crap like this? :lol: They would have to throw HIPPA right down the drain. :frusty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Somebody testing the waters or making a point, that's all-

An attempt too illustrate absurdity by being absurd.

---

I'm glad to hear that our legislators are all caught up on the real work of government and have time to indulge in such recherche pursuits.

I think Sen. Miller was simply using her pulpit to define her image with an eye to upcoming political aspirations.
I'll bet her campaign contributions increase exponentially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Somebody testing the waters or making a point, that's all-

An attempt too illustrate absurdity by being absurd.

---

I'm glad to hear that our legislators are all caught up on the real work of government and have time to indulge in such recherche pursuits.

I think Sen. Miller was simply using her pulpit to define her image with an eye to upcoming political aspirations.
I'll bet her campaign contributions increase exponentially.

---

Good point.

It was like the pursuit of defining marriage between a man and a woman in the Constitution. :shifty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Somebody testing the waters or making a point, that's all-

An attempt too illustrate absurdity by being absurd.

---

I'm glad to hear that our legislators are all caught up on the real work of government and have time to indulge in such recherche pursuits.

---

Surely you are aware that this impetus which we call wasteful is bi-partisan in nature, and compels perhaps 95% of all legislative action? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

I'm glad to hear that our legislators are all caught up on the real work of government and have time to indulge in such recherche pursuits.

---

Surely you are aware that this impetus which we call wasteful is bi-partisan in nature, and compels perhaps 95% of all legislative action? ;)

---

......and it is deserving of derision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Surely you are aware that this impetus which we call wasteful is bi-partisan in nature, and compels perhaps 95% of all legislative action? ;)

---

And that is relevant how?
Did Sen. Miller have Democratic backers I am unaware of?

Face it j2, this is just another clarion call to Christian conservatives by a mush-headed politician (who, in this case, is indubitably Republican).
Even the good Senator in her wildest dreams could not have thought this proposal would bear fruit, but it is an excellent way to show that she hates queers, immigrants and any other non-white Christians as much as the powerful core constituancy of her party.

this is way out of control. I feel like this country is regressing right in front of my eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Surely you are aware that this impetus which we call wasteful is bi-partisan in nature, and compels perhaps 95% of all legislative action? ;)

---

And that is relevant how?
Did Sen. Miller have Democratic backers I am unaware of?

Face it j2, this is just another clarion call to Christian conservatives by a mush-headed politician (who, in this case, is indubitably Republican).
Even the good Senator in her wildest dreams could not have thought this proposal would bear fruit, but it is an excellent way to show that she hates queers, immigrants and any other non-white Christians as much as the powerful core constituancy of her party.

---

I was making the perfectly reasonable point that the great majority of our legislators' activities are efforts expended in service of self-perpetuation or, as in this case, stupid, felt causes mis- or mal-perceived, and that the phenomenon of the impetus is not manifested in only one party.

I should add that the attribution of this quality exclusively to only one or the other of the two prevalent political parties in our country is indicative of a closed mind.

In other words, I am not accusing you of Ruthie-ness, but merely noting that your post was Ruthie-like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I was making the perfectly reasonable point that the great majority of our legislators' activities are efforts expended in service of self-perpetuation or, as in this case, stupid, felt causes mis- or mal-perceived, and that the phenomenon of the impetus is not manifested in only one party.

I should add that the attribution of this quality exclusively to only one or the other of the two prevalent political parties in our country is indicative of a closed mind.

---

This does kind of go against the right wings stance that the democrats are the party of NO ideas ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I was making the perfectly reasonable point that the great majority of our legislators' activities are efforts expended in service of self-perpetuation or, as in this case, stupid, felt causes mis- or mal-perceived, and that the phenomenon of the impetus is not manifested in only one party.

I should add that the attribution of this quality exclusively to only one or the other of the two prevalent political parties in our country is indicative of a closed mind.

---

This does kind of go against the right wings stance that the democrats are the party of NO ideas ;)

---

I'm not quite sure what you intend that to mean in relation to my post, but the gist of it is ironic in that, if we ever suffer the ignominy of another liberal President, you will have absolutely no basis from which to claim relevancy for any subsequent remarks you will no doubt still feel compelled to make. :D

Well done!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I was making the perfectly reasonable point that the great majority of our legislators' activities are efforts expended in service of self-perpetuation

---

OKey-dokey.
Now, back to Sen. Miller and her reproductive purity act.

What do think of her?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

, if we ever suffer the ignominy of another liberal President,

---

What an idiotic statement in light of the current tenure of the President. :ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I was making the perfectly reasonable point that the great majority of our legislators' activities are efforts expended in service of self-perpetuation

---

OKey-dokey.
Now, back to Sen. Miller and her reproductive purity act.

What do think of her?

---

Good luck clocker. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I was making the perfectly reasonable point that the great majority of our legislators' activities are efforts expended in service of self-perpetuation

---

OKey-dokey.
Now, back to Sen. Miller and her reproductive purity act.

What do think of her?

---

I don't know her, I'm not familiar with her, and I don't have any compelling urge to wade through what must be a thoroughly misguided legislative effort, as it is easily and properly judged by it's surface components.

That she labels herself a Republican is unfortunate for the party, I'd say.

What do you think of Senator Robert Byrd, D-Virginia? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

OKey-dokey.
Now, back to Sen. Miller and her reproductive purity act.

What do think of her?

---

I don't know her, I'm not familiar with her, and I don't have any compelling urge to wade through what must be a thoroughly misguided legislative effort, as it is easily and properly judged by it's surface components.

That she labels herself a Republican is unfortunate for the party, I'd say.

What do you think of Senator Robert Byrd, D-Virginia? :P

---

Name some shit he's done.

edit: I know who he is. It's West Virginia and he's that fucking dick ass ex-Klansman that said he met "white niggers" on the news.

He is one good reason to keep affirmative action. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

, if we ever suffer the ignominy of another liberal President,

---

What an idiotic statement in light of the current tenure of the President. :ermm:

---

A distinctly uncharitable remark here in the land of free speech. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

What do you think of Senator Robert Byrd, D-Virginia? :P

---

http://www.wrybread.com/gammablablog.../5-03/byrd.jpg
Seems avuncular enough, why?
Does he want to regulate reproduction too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I don't know her, I'm not familiar with her, and I don't have any compelling urge to wade through what must be a thoroughly misguided legislative effort, as it is easily and properly judged by it's surface components.

That she labels herself a Republican is unfortunate for the party, I'd say.

What do you think of Senator Robert Byrd, D-Virginia? :P

---

Name some shit he's done.

---

Don't be an asshole, Busyman.

If you're a fan of his, say it, then we'll get down to cases.

Perhaps you could begin by defending his tenure in the KKK early on, or maybe you'd care to explain why, when he was banging on recently about "niggers" we didn't hear a fucking peep out of you?

If you want to troll, that's fine and dandy, just don't bring that shit in front of me, 'cuz you'll end up covered with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

What an idiotic statement in light of the current tenure of the President. :ermm:

---

A distinctly uncharitable remark here in the land of free speech. :dry:

---

When have I ever been charitable or stifled free speech? :huh:

Clinton in my left hand or Bush in my right hand. I'd cut off my right hand....and it be the obvious choice.

When I asked about "The Accomplishments Of Bush", I wasn't fucking around trying to be smartassed. I buckle down and think logically about what a President is fucking doing for the good of the country by the decisions they make.

It blows my mind when followers support particular decisions he makes whether that follower is a staunch Republican or simply just likes the guy.

The same went for when Clinton lied to Congress because it embarassed the office but it pales in comparison to the numerousfuckupcurrentshitthecountryisin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Name some shit he's done.

---

Don't be an asshole, Busyman.

If you're a fan of his, say it, then we'll get down to cases.

Perhaps you could begin by defending his tenure in the KKK early on, or maybe you'd care to explain why, when he was banging on recently about "niggers" we didn't hear a fucking peep out of you?

If you want to troll, that's fine and dandy, just don't bring that shit in front of me, 'cuz you'll end up covered with it.

---

You don't be an asshole?

Read my edit. It was before your post.

and it was "white niggers"

You picked the wrong one buddy. Do you actually fucking think I'm a partyline hardliner.....like yourself?

Fuck Byrd and fuck you. Democrat ain't my religion and unlike some a you brainless fucks, I don't support some dickheads decisions 'cause he "is my party candidate."

Do you actually think people across the ocean care if the President is Democrat or Republican? Fuck no. They are simply are looking at the actions of the President with some logicalness. We elect a President and they see if shit comes flying from the US to their hometown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

When I asked about "The Accomplishments Of Bush", I wasn't fucking around trying to be smartassed. I buckle down and think logically about what a President is fucking doing for the good of the country by the decisions they make.

It blows my mind when followers support particular decisions he makes whether that follower is a staunch Republican or simply just likes the guy.

.

---

Given the claim you make in the first sentence, I'd question both the quality of your buckle and your ability to operate it after reading the second sentence.

Good night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

When I asked about "The Accomplishments Of Bush", I wasn't fucking around trying to be smartassed. I buckle down and think logically about what a President is fucking doing for the good of the country by the decisions they make.

It blows my mind when followers support particular decisions he makes whether that follower is a staunch Republican or simply just likes the guy.

.

---

Given the claim you make in the first sentence, I'd question both the quality of your buckle and your ability to operate it after reading the second sentence.

Good night.

---

Yeah and Bush is in the negative integers. :ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Given the claim you make in the first sentence, I'd question both the quality of your buckle and your ability to operate it after reading the second sentence.

Good night.

---

Yeah and Bush is in the negative integers. :ermm:

---

I can't decipher that, sorry.

And WTF about your "edit" re: Byrd?

Am I now supposed to re-read the whole fucking thread to catch your corrections, honestly entered or not?

Is this or is this not a PROGRESSION of posts?

If you want, you could go all the way back to the beginning of the thread and edit yourself, couldn't you?

You bang on that I withhold my opinion for maximum effect; it's true-ask anyone who debates, they will tell you it is a time-honored tactic.

Wasn't my denunciation of this twit from Indiana sufficient for you, or did you somehow interpret it as "blind support" of "my" party?

Get your buckle fixed.

To be honest I don't understand American politics either but If had to vote between
j2k4 (Conservative ) Busyman (Republican ) or Everyrose (Democrat) I'd be lost !



Did I get that half right ? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Yeah and Bush is in the negative integers. :ermm:

---

I can't decipher that, sorry.

---

Quote:

---

I buckle down and think logically about what a President is fucking doing for the good of the country by the decisions they make.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

And WTF about your "edit" re: Byrd?

Am I now supposed to re-read the whole fucking thread to catch your corrections, honestly entered or not?

Is this or is this not a PROGRESSION of posts?

If you want, you could go all the way back to the beginning of the thread and edit yourself, couldn't you?

---

Cool. It just showed your post was irrelevant is all since I did know of him and thought him to be shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

You bang on that I withhold my opinion for maximum effect; it's true-ask anyone who debates, they will tell you it is a time-honored tactic.

Wasn't my denunciation of this twit from Indiana sufficient for you, or did you somehow interpret it as "blind support" of "my" party?

---

Tbh, I was surprised. I mean I hear you neocons support some outrageous stuff. I watch movies for shit like this and am writing some screenplays and some of this shit I hear from you, manny and Hank is..shall we say supposed to be imaginative. However, here it is in real life. It actually boggles me.