Unauthorized Reproduction bill

[mongo]

This is from a thread in GD - I wanted to make sure it got some exposure over here where threads move a little slower - and a big thank you to IndianaGreen for finding this.

--------------------------
A draft of the legislation which, among other things, bars unmarried
people from having children by articifial means is here:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/prelim/...

Here's a draft of the story that is running this week. It will be my cover story in two weeks also. Feel free to pass this info along to every one you know. This has to be stopped!!!

Keep fighting the good fight!

Laura

The Crime of "Unauthorized Reproduction"
New law will require marriage as a legal condition of motherhood

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."

More at the Indiana Forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
--------------------------

and here's the thread in GD http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4963321

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. I have dealt with the Patriot Act

and the election scams and a dozen other wrongs..

but this one just PISSES THE HELL OUT OF ME.

I don't think they have a chance of passing this. DO THEY? TELL ME THEY DON'T, PLEASE.

[sam sarrha]

2. Fascism creeps in by barring things very few would ever think of doing..

then it becomes a noose to strangle the lives of everyone..

join the Anti-Fascist Party.

if you think you might some day want to bake your own bread.. that may soon be illegal.

[femrap]

3. kick......

will the nightmare please end....nominated

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Hey Indiana! Why stop there?! Why not go all out SS/Third Reich?

Why not make that gestational certificate based on genetic testing to make sure that BOTH PARENTS ARE "SUITABLE" for procreation, y'know, EUGENICS. Cut down on the expenses and burdens of birth defects, public subsidizing a life that could have been prevented, etc. Why stop at being offensive when you can be all-out repulsive.

[mongo]

5. This is definitely a first step to that

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.


If this passes and is upheld by the Roberts Court, what is to stop them from expanding this "gestational certificate" to all couples?

I fear for our country. How close are we to "The Handmaid's Tale"?

On edit: I forgot that spell check was my friend...

[Unleash_the_Backlash]

8. How close are we to The Handmaid's Tale?

When I read that book several years ago, I asked myself what type of society would end up with such a twisted set of rules and values.

And then a few years passed, and I realized exactly what type of society it takes:

A society in which reproduction becomes coercive.
A society in which women are either breeders or not breeders.

And we're on our way.

As the South Dakota anti-abortion law works its way to the Supreme Court, many people are concerned about the future of Roe v. Wade. While a serious issue, the Supreme Court could do far more harm than overturning Roe. They could go farther into precedent and overturn one of the foundations of the case - Griswold v. Connecticut. Griswold is the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a Constitutional right of privacy. Griswold made the use of contraception by married couples a Constitutionally protected activity. The Supreme Court is going to need a basis for overturning Roe. If they decide that the basis for overturning it is that there is no inherent right to privacy in this country, they may have to go back and overrule Griswold.

If we reach the point where reproductive rights, including the right to purchase and use contraception, are unprotected for anyone, reproduction becomes coercive. Abstinence, good timing and luck become will be our only safe alternatives to coerced reproduction.

The Indiana law and the same-sex marriage debate bring the breeders/non-breeders issue into sharp focus. The same-sex marriage debate, by defining the primary purpose of marriage as reproduction, rather than creation of a legal relationship between two people, begins to delineate between breeders and non-breeders. The Indiana legislation blatantly creates a class of people who are legally authorized breeders.

So, how close are we to The Handmaid's Tale? I submit that if we have to ask that question, we're already too close. Although we may not end up with exactly Margaret Atwood's future, the possible non-fiction future is chilling enough.

And by the time we know, it will be too late.

[Finder]

6. Very creepy. n/t

[MountainLaurel]

7. Story from the Washington Blade

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=2752

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.

State Sen. Patricia Miller acknowledged that the legislation before her panel would be 'enormously controversial.'

Sen. Patricia Miller (R-Indianapolis) said state law does not have regulations on assisted reproduction and should have similar requirements to adoption in Indiana.

"If were going to try to put Indiana on the map, I wouldn't go this route," said Betty Cockrum, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana. "It feels pretty chilling. It is governmental intrusion into a very private part of our lives."

[NMMNG]

9. Hey, while we're at it

Let's start giving women IQ tests. Any woman with an IQ below 90 will automatically have her ovaries removed. We don't want those women reproducing after all.

Not to mention atheists...if they refuse to become Christians they must have tubal ligations, which will only be reversed if they become Christians (which must be verified by a special panel of investigators).





Stupid fascist SOBs. :grr:

[jukes]

10. IF this passes

and the supremes don't throw it out, then it's time to burn the house down, or move to venezuela.

i'm trying to improve my wretched border-spanish so that it's intelligible (except i'll never get rid of my urban, midwest accent) in the civilized world.