an indulgence Ductape. For all the Europeans that are reading this, please visit our sister site: European Tribune
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.”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 websitehttp://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/prelim/HFCO04.pdf
The next meeting of the Health Finance Commission will be held a t
the Statehouse on October 20, 2005 at 10 am in Senate Chambers and
is open to the public.To express your support or opposition of legislation
making “unauthorized reproduction” a criminal act, contact members
of the Health Finance Commission by telephone or email:Sen. Patricia Miller (R) 232-9489 s32@…
Sen. Gregory Server (R) 232-9490 s50@…
Sen. Gary Dillon (R) 232-9808 s17@…
Sen. Beverly Gard (R) 232-9493 s28@…
Sen. Ryan Mishler (R) 233-0930 s9@…
Sen. Connie Lawson (R) 232-9984 s24@…
Sen. Marvin Riegsecker (R) 232-9488 s12@…
Sen. Billie Breaux (D) 232-9849 s34@…
Sen. Vi Simpson (D) 232-9849 s40@…
Sen. Connie Sipes (D) 232-9526 s46@…
Sen. Timothy Skinner (D) 232-9523 s38@…
Rep. Vaneta Becker (R) 232-9769 h78@…
Rep. Robert Behning (R) 232-9981 h91@…
Rep. Timothy Brown (R) 234-3825 h41@…
Rep.Mary Kay Budak(R) 232-9641 h20@…
Rep. Da vid Frizzell (R) 232-9981 h93@…
Rep. Donald Lehe (R) 232-9648 h15@…
Rep. Richard Dodge (R) 232-9729 h51@…
Rep. Charlie Brown (D) 232-9676 h3@…
Rep. David Orentlicher (D) 232-9991 h86@…
Rep. Craig Fry (D) 232-9994 h5@…
Rep. Carolene Mays (D) 232-0243 h94@…
Rep. Scott Reske (D) 232-9695 h37@…props to Indiana Green at http://www.progressiveindependent.com
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.
If married women prove unable to produce a sufficient number of disposable Abu Ghraib guards, it could always be repealed.
this is really scary. Thanks, DT.
The link you gave won’t work for me. Could you possibly post some text from the bill?
It should work now, sorry about that.
I’ve read most of the way through the PDF file of the draft, and this is bad … really bad.
and can’t find the Laura McPhee story with the poisonous quotes. Do you have a direct link for that as well? Thanks!
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2068
Now you’ll know I posted the same comment in the thread there as I did in the diary here.
Oh the shame.
thank you for posting this ductape. we’re going to help you get the word out on this one.
Sent it out to my women’s healthcare providers’ list last night.
to my PP political action group this morning.
Lauren at Feministe has a post up on this bill that also contains contact information for Ms. Miller.
Holy Shit, Indiana
The BooMan community outrage was not unheard. The bill is no more
This is fiction, right? You’ve posted a snippet from some Atwood-y type, right? ‘Cause there’s no way this could be real…
::please God, don’t let this be real::
http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/prelim/HFCO04.pdf
You can click it and decide for yourself what if any differences exist between Ms. Atwood’s gifts of prophecy and the entity behind US domains ending in .gov
I’m currently reading it right now … I’m a little speechless at the moment.
… but doesn’t it say that the the married couple requesting assisted reproduction must provide:
It would be interesting to get the fertility specialists/MDs’ thoughts on this, seeing as how they’ll have to have all this new documentation proving the couple they’re assisting is legally allowed to have the service…
Oh God. I’m gonna go throw up now…
I could mention that abortion providing physicians have been appealing in vain to their more “mainstream” colleagues and to the major medical organizations to help lobby against the ever-increasing encroachment of TRAP laws for years now.
What part of “it’s us today, but it will be you tomorrow” didn’t they understand?
It’s already happening, slippery slope
The proposed mandatory intrusion into the personal lifes of those seeking help here is justified by “we already do it to would-be adoptive parents.” Next step will be to demand this intrusion to be mandatory for all couples, justified by “we already do it to those couples who need a little help to be pregnant.”
This goes through and before you know it divorcies will become illegal.
Next, single women will become illegal and authorities will be allowed to claim single women ’eminent domains’ and pair them up with Halliburton stallions<s>tm</s>.
I have long feared that single women would be a target for the American taliban, second only to gays.
Time for a climate change, methinks.
I have long feared that single women would be a target for the American taliban, second only to gays.
This bill covers both. I think the primary target in this particular monstrosity is lesbians with, I’ve no doubt, women who have children OOW close behind. I believe that the aim is a legal framework which allows the state to legally and easily claim custody of infants born to non-approved women.
That was my first thought: it’s an excellent way to legalize the seizing of children for other purposes. And forgive me for saying this, but I could see them making it retroactive if they were successful with the legally sanctioned infant abductions.
This state is not interested in raising other people’s children; it isn’t even particularly interested in doing anything for those who have two parents. I think what they want to do is
Well, my thought was that after chasing the lesbians out of town, unauthorized white children would be placed in “Christian” homes, and non-whites would be raised in orphanges for the military.
This is just heinous. Unfortunately, I don’t think too many people will give it a second thought.
I don’t think it will be given a second thought by many, because it will be presented as a way of reducing the number of children born to poor unmarried nonwhites and I’m sure they’ll tie in the whole “You need to prove more skills to get a driver’s license than to become a parent” argument, which will totally appeal to the religious neanderthals.
And forgive me for saying this, but I could see them making it retroactive if they were successful with the legally sanctioned infant abductions.
They want the infants, not the older children. There’s approximately 150,000 foster children up for adoption in the US at any given time that no one wants. Part of this is because upper middle class couples want to adopt children who ‘look like them’, part is because they don’t want ‘ruined children’ and part is because they don’t want any future parental claims on the child they adopt.
There aren’t the resources to make it retroactive, there aren’t the resources to care for the low income children already born.
You’re right.
I don’t think they’re going after lesbians any more so than gays in general — and this sort of bill will probably hit the gay men harder, actually, since ‘borrowing’ sperm is usually easier than ‘borrowing’ a womb.
By which I mean, because I’m fertile I could get myself knocked up over the weekend without touching anyone so long as I had a willing fertile male friend and turkey baster, and no one would ever know I hadn’t had “proper sex”. (I’d be OOW, sure, but this bill doesn’t address OOW conceptions outside the lab. Yet. I’ve no doubt it’s on the To Do list.) But gay men typically find it much harder to find a surrogate mother who will also jump through all the hoops she’ll have to because he’s gay, and this bill will just make it that much harder because if any queer would-be-parents have the same sorts of troubles that straight would-be-paernts have trying to conceive, then rather than being able to avail themselves of the remedies available on the market, they will be threatened with punishment for daring to think they’re equal to heterosexuals.
You know the right wing thinks gay men are sorta like deformed women-with-penises, so they treat them accordingly. The queer men don’t really have it much easier, overall and on the average, than queer women.
I believe that the aim is a legal framework which allows the state to legally and easily claim custody of infants born to non-approved women.
Change that last bit to “non-approved people, especially non-approved women”, and I think it’s exactly right.
Now you see the real base for the anti-abortion movement… I particulary like debating the anti-abortion loons on Kos and inevitably they ALL end up addressing their real beef… that the woman was allowed to abort “a man’s property” with out his say so… that is what this is all about. Is it any wonder that the most rabid anti-abortion folks are white males…
This bill is the logical next step… not only will a woman be criminalized for “destroying a man’s property” aka abortion now she will have to ask his permission to even concieve…
Yes, yes and yes. Like the hokey-pokey, that’s what it’s all about.
And making sure we have the “right” babies, too. See also Bill Bennett.
It’s also classist. Who do you think will be setting the standards for lifestyle, and what church/temple/synagogue is OK. How many times a year must you attend church, to be approved? Do you have to teach Sunday school? Will they check how much you give?
If you attend NASCAR races and bowl with the league on Friday nights, is that acceptable? How many times per month can you go to the sports bar with your friends? If your parents were born in Asia and you live with your extended family, is that OK? If you’re Muslim, is that OK? If you have an altar to your ancestors in the living room, is that OK? What about if grandma’s ashes are in an urn on the fireplace mantel because you’re taking care of Grandpa, who wants them to be scattered with his when he dies? Is that OK? Will they check the books you have on your bookshelves? Will they count the number of tv sets in your house?
This is sickening, and I’m bother heartily glad I moved AWAY from Indiana (in part because of the mentality that allows things like this to see the light of day)…and wish I were still there to confront these morons.
I think you should mention it. Whenever and wherever you get the chance. I’ve read your diaries and comments, and I thank you for doing the work you do and for educating us as well. When good people stop fighting, well … that’s when we are truly in trouble.
Thank you, olivia. Just … thank you.
You’ve posted a snippet from some Atwood-y type, right?
The first thing I thought as I read this…
I assume they don’t expect this piece of toilet paper to pass?
After all, it’s intrusive, controlling and homophobic, so as far as the wingers are concerned, it has a lot going for it right out of the gate. And Sen. Miller’s only concern is the welfare of sweet and innocent little children. How can anyone object to that?
Doesn’t it just make your blood run cold?
Did they include the part where the state will decide if people applying for a marriage lic. should actually be allowed to marry? I mean, you know how fertile married people can have all those children, and they might not be the right kind. . .you know. . .mixed social classes, mixed races, mixed religions, people with illnesses, former mental patients, ex cons, Democrats. . .oh, there are just so many things to consider. . .and we all know the STATE knows better than we do about such things. Or maybe that is a separate Bill altogether.
When are they going to drop the pretenses and put on the Nazi arm bands?
Oh Shirl, I totally agree. As a high school teacher, I have witnessed some married-to-each-other parents do some amazing things.
How about the mom who called her lazy but nice kid a stupid asshole in front of me.
Or, I remember the dad, who didn’t speak any English and whose daughter was translating for him. Well, in the middle of the conversation, he hit on me. The poor girl turned 3 shades of red and shrieked “daddy.”
wingers are so on the march.
strikes again!
Tell me that you are joking. I live right above Indiana, and I am afraid that stupid rises.
Indiana may be leading the way, but I anticipate similar measures will appear in other states, and shortly, in the Congress.
I imagine it is being drafted, or ready to spring in KS, MO, MI, MS, AL, OK, UT, NE and so on. And that deals have been struck.
Thank you so much for posting this…
i read and read, waiting for the punch line, sure this was some post from the onion or something. SCARY!
This is what they have been working toward for 5 long years and this will be the first of many such heinous bills that must be fought. Sadly we now have a loaded judiciary because the Dems let Bush have 96% of his picks.
Do you have a link to the original article (by Laura McPhee)? I couldn’t find it at progressiveindependent.com. Thanks.
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2068
Wow, if this isn’t something out of a bad Sci-Fi movie, I don’t know what is.
I have raised my daughter alone for almost her whole life. Even before her dad left, he was useless. While I never wanted to be a single mom and thought that that would be horrible, I have since discovered that it is really good, for both her and I. I didn’t think I could hack the responsibility, but I learned that not only could I hack it, but I love it. I make all the decisions regarding my daughter’s upbringing. No arguments about what school to attend, which, if any, religion to raise her as, what kind of clothes she should wear, whether or not to talk about sex, drugs, or teen pressures, etc. Does she miss having a dad? Sure. Yet most of it stems from having had a dad and losing him, than from not having a dad now.
I have known plenty of gay parents where the kids don’t even think about having a parent of the opposite gender. They tend to be really well adjusted kids.
My fears were unfounded. Cypress, my daughter, is living proof that it is more than possible to raise a smart, educated, moral, compassionate, and well-adjusted kid without a father.
This is simply frightening legislation. Once again, I must ask, how far must we go before women realize that their freedoms are diminishing every day.
I should also point out that I have known several single dads who also kick ass. Is this law going to apply to women only, or can a dad hire a womb or adopt an infant or what? Kids don’t suffer from having only one parent, or only parents of one gender. Any single mom or dad can raise a happy kid.
Is this law going to apply to women only
All of these laws apply to women only. Name me one culture wars law these guys have come up with that inconveniences males.
Good for you. I’m one of those kids myself and I think I turned out all right. Happy, healthy, doing work I love, and blissfully married 11 years. Sure, I’d have been legal under this bill. But I’m sure they’ll follow it up by criminalizing divorce for anyone with children and then make it retroactive. Arggg!
empahsis mine
What does this mean? I thought this was a draft of a law for Indiana — is it intended to be brought to the national stage??
DF, I’m glad you posted this, but I know that I am going to have nightmares tonight — and i’m only 1/2 way through the damnable thing.
To launch it first in Indiana before introducing it onto the floor of the House.
and then it gets appealed all the way to the Supreme Court…oh, yes, i feel better now. that’s about all I can take tonight, off to my nightmares!
Sleep well, everyone!
erstwhile Red State Democrat, ROEMER knows about all of this… he of Indiana.
Wonder what Evan Bayh knows of this. I see 9 Democratic names up on that list.
I see 9 Democratic names up on that list.
you need reading glasses. We’ve been told time and time again that Democrats don’t cross the aisle. Party Unity!!
‘including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do
become pregnant “by means other than sexual intercourse.”‘
Amazing they would have sent Mary to jail!
My brother-in-law was precociously irreverent, and in Sunday School he piped up with “So Jesus was a bastard?” during a discussion of the immaculate conception. It did not go down well.
I guess the illegality of IC would depend on whether The Lord God got a permit from The State of Indiana…
Wow… “Unauthorized reproduction” Unbeleivable…
How long will Senator Miller wait to introduce a bill on banning “thought crime”?
to restrict abortion:
And now Miller pushes for criminalization of “unauthorized reproduction.” For self-described “pro-life” Dems, here’s yet another chance to catch the clue train: being “pro-choice” isn’t the same thing as the promotion of abortion.
You’re right moiv, being pro-choice is BOTH sides of the issue. Pro (fetal) life is the extremist position. Ms. Miller proves that with her monstrosity.
I’m horrified at the outrageousness of this intended bill.
But there are others that are passing though, other bills, even more horrid in their effect because they have passed and they are passing all across this country.
TRAP is how they’re killing reproductive rights in this country. and after they kill those they’re after EC and they’re coming after birth control. And it isn’t about life at all.
What is TRAP?
The hidden TRAP behind “Safe, Legal and Rare”
shirl,
why did you rate this post a zero?
Shirl doesn’t give no stinking zeroes. Mistake I’m sure :0) I got a new mouse with a track ball and I’ve mistakenly given out a zero or two lately, which I quickly correct.
it happens sometimes — not much to worry about — just look at shirl’s other posts and ratings and you’ll see that is was probably just that. No biggie — happens to me all the time!
But we’re not supposed to call them NAZIS?! Bullshit. I’m so sick of these fascists I can’t see straight.
Tell me again how we’re not supposed to be all that concerned about reproductive rights.
The concept of passing a law forbidding a woman to have a child–or requiring a woman to have a child, for that matter–should, in any civilized world, be unthinkable. Unauthorized reproduction? How fucking chilling is the idea that anyone should need governmental authorization to reproduce?
I suppose the next logical step is a bill outlawing unauthorized sex, and they’ll develop a combination chastity belt/electronic monitoring device as an enforcement tool. Folks, welcome to the world of Vaginacam!
Fuck these fucking fucks! It’s way past time to chase these sex-obsessed Taliban freaks back to the slime pools that spawned them.
This will categorically bar gays from using any kind of assisted reproductive technology in the whole state of Indiana.
Which I’m sure is the primary goal of the legislation. You’ll never convince me that these asswipes give five-eighths of a shit about “the children.”
Well, so far it’s a two-fer — they get to treat women like broodmares, which they love, and they get to queer-bash without setting off the constitutional alarm. If we can find one more group they’re screwing over with this bill, we’ll have a conservative nutjob trifecta.
Well, as someone else quoted above: “must provide a description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents, include a description of individual participation in faith-based or church activities, hobbies, and other interests.”
So I’d go with atheists – another one they really enjoy beating on.
::ding ding ding:: And we have a winner! Congratulations Hamumu! Pat, tell the man what he’s won…
Sure thing, Indy!!
It’s a lifetime of government monitoring and lifestyle regulations by Busy-Body Lobby, Corp.! Why worry about thinking and breeding when Busy-Body Lobby, Corp. can show you how!
With the Busy-Body Lobby Corp. method, you won’t be bothered by another pesky, unapproved thought again. We’ll tell you what to do and how. No messy cleanup! It’s so quick and easy to use–we guarantee it! (Or your life in Abu Ghraib.)
And all of this with absolutely no money down. Simply trade in your unused civil liberties and human rights, and you can enjoy the Busy-Body Lobby Corp method right now!
Offer void in some states. But we’re working on it.
That was my first thought — since I know lesbian couples who took advantage of in-vitro fertilization so that one of the women could bear a child for them to raise.
The traditional two-parent family is now only something like 25% of all American families. (I forget where I read that, but that number stuck in my head). You simply cannot legislate what a family is — there are just too many variations on the theme now. Single parents, parents that have remarried after divorce (sometimes more than once), children being raised by grandparents, other relatives, or foster parents… And so long as the child is loved and supported, they will do just fine in any combination our society provides, INCLUDING parents who are gay.
What are they going to do about the single woman who gets pregnant the old-fashioned way, whether intentionally or not? Tell her she’s not authorized to reproduce and force her to have an abortion? Good GRIEF, this is totally insane….
Maybe a single woman will have to prove she got pregnant the old-fashioned way. And then what? A state-mandated shotgun wedding to keep the government from taking your child away?
This thing could have all kinds of ugly repercussions, and after reading the parenthood requirements in the draft of the bill, I’m ready to believe that just about anything is possible
See my comment about my situation downthread — does my assessemnt of it sound right to you?
How would one “PROVE” the old-fashioned way?
they used to wave the bloody sheets out the window … of course, in order for that work you have to enforce virginity, and outlaw gymnastics, bike riding, horseback riding ….
rears its ugly head, and another, and then another. Why stop when we’re on a roll? After all, the wingers certainly don’t.
might as well just save ourselves a bunch of trouble and keep all the women locked up (so damned distracting!) or … I don’t know, maybe long robes with headscarves! Yes, THAT’S IT! It’ll keep them safe, and save us men from our own dirty selves! Then we’ll know our son is our son! Wow, why hasn’t anybody thought of this before!!
</head explodes>
That wouldn’t be a problem at all. She could prove that the same way a woman in Pakistan proves that she was raped — with four male witnesses.
Well, since the wingnuts oppose abortion, I suppose that what they’d like to do is to stone the woman in the public square until she’s comatose, then keep her on life support until the fetus is viable. After all, we’re only incubators anyway.
I was pretty stupified by this legislation, being real and all. Understanding it was real, I didn’t think I could laugh about it. Until I read this comment. It is without a doubt the funniest thing I’ve read in this thread. Fucking pathetic, laughable and best of all — it might be the truth. We are so fucked.
Tell her she’s not authorized to reproduce and force her to have an abortion?
No, they’re going to force her to carry to term and then force her to give up her child.
Who will, of course, then have to join the army to pay back the state for the cost of raising them…
Who will, of course, then have to join the army to pay back the state for the cost of raising them…
I’ve been waiting for legislation enforcing some forms of indentured servitude for quite some time now.
We must gather our Pilgrim Outfits and stock up on Scarlett Letters.
On a personal note I’m glad I’m 53 and past my reproductive years because if I did today what I did back in the 60s & 70s (make love not war) I’d be fodder for the Christian Right.
However maybe a law against unsuspecting mates marrying alcoholics/drug/porn/gambling/greedy addicts might not be such a bad thing…
above all the rest. Just put all of us in jail. There are a lot of empty private prisons around the states- maybe that’s the plan.
OMFG I thought it was satire at first.
is on the march.
The same “Freedom” we’re bringing to Iraq…. where Riverbend reports getting harrassed for not wearing sufficiently “modest” clothing or a headscarf. And she cannot — can not — go out of the house without at least one of her male relatives for protection.
The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette also has the story:
Click here.
So, I slept without nightmares last night, or if I had them, thankfully, I don’t recall, but I have been thinking about this all morning.
Let’s say that this was law back in ’99 when I became pregnant. And let’s put aside the obstacles that an unmarried woman has with finding prenatal care through medicaid while working 3 jobs and going to school….
I go to my doctor and she has two choices: either take my word for it that I became pregnant through sexual intercourse or refuse to provide care because I cannot give her a “gestational certificate” that proves my intentions as a parent.
If she chooses the former, it seems that she is putting herself at great professional risk on my behalf. Becuase who knows, I may be a “rouge” surrogate who leases out my womb to the highest bidder!!
If she chooses the latter, I am SOL because I am unmarried and cannot convince the court to allow me to be an “intended parent” — am I missing something here or is that the way this scenario would play out?
Yes, you are missing something:
Emphasis mine. But don’t fret Brin, they’ll get the single gals who “get in trouble the old fashioned way” on the next go around, I’m sure. Assholes.
But the question would remain for me, if I were the doctor int hat scenario — how would I KNOW that this pregnant person in front of me hadn’t gotten artificially impregnanted?? i guess I would just have to rely on the ethics of my colleagues?
Also, this proported purpose of this law is to specify vaguaries in the current law re surragtes, etc, correct? So, if I am an infertile couple, what’s to stop me from by passing all of this by just finding a woman who will agree to be a “gestational mother” the old fashioned way? Nothing, right? So, how does this help exactly in terms of specifying the legalities of it all? I don’t think it does….
and you’re right, they are assholes of the highest degree!
They could TORTURE the women. Legs in stir ups already. Bush inc has been touting the use of torture as a way to get information.
I put nothing past these asswipes.
It’s war.
And so you have a situation painfully close to the “Handmaid’s Tale” scenario–rich couple provides room, board, and medical care for a poor woman so that she’ll let the husband fuck her and have his baby. Or if they want to avoid any pregnant-while-unmarried concerns, the rich couple could pay shitloads of money to a poor couple for a little wife-borrowing.
If you were the doctor, you couldn’t possibly know — and as a doctor, you’d have to know that. Without catapulting myself into the mountains of TMI-land, let me just say that there are plenty of things you can do that will make it look as though you’ve been having heterosexual intercourse even if you’ve never so much as looked askance at a penis.
Still, it’s a totally fucked up law, no doubt. I’d like to think that simple pragmatics and the obvious impossibility of proving whether every single pregnant woman has had recent heterosexual intercourse would prohibit them from trying but I’ve learned not to expect anything remotely like logic from them.
As we all know here at the BT, it’s not about logic for them, it’s about control. This bill isn’t supposed to make sense — sense isn’t its function. It’s just supposed to pass, and then they’ll make the enforcement of it up as they go along.
The doctor could know it he/she were present at the time of conception, to confirm virginity beforehand and lock the chastity belt afterwards. Aw hell, why not give the doctors, certifying agents of the state, or cronies of the president prima notte rights and cut out the middleman.
WRT your point about making sense. I agree, and think they are floating this as more morality laws to boost turnout of the fundy base.
What I want to know is, once this unauthorized woman has been convicted of the Class B misdemeanor, will she be classified as a “sex offender” and have to register her address with the authorities for the rest of her life?
is a big buddy boy of the chimp’s. So the idea that Indiana, a reliable red state, would be a test run for this is pretty reasonable.
We are entering the dystopical reality of “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
while that’s still “legal”
Or we can get really pissed off and declare WAR on the Talibaptists and the Democratic “leaders” who remain silent.
I seriously thought this was satire. This shouldn’t be discussed it should be smashed.
Fuck Bush and all who support him and what this country is falling down into. Fuck them all. How many rights are we going to see shat away before we get really pissed off?
Yikes!!! Just take it all now!!! Is there nothing beyond their attempted reach?
No, obviously there is nothing beyond their reach. We’re all in the stirrups now.
The state of Indiana has noted that 90% of all women have left the state. Elmer Quigly, Evansville, noted that he hasn’t had a date in several years, and has to go to Kentucky in order to view women.
I hope that any optimists out there who preferred to believe that the Religious Reich wasn’t really out to impose Deuteronomy as the law of the land are feeling appropriately chastised now. When Buchanan announced, all those years ago, his declaration of culture war, he was not speaking figuratively.
The mere fact that this bill was drafted with the serious expectation of introducing it for debate in a state legislature, much less passing it, indicates how broad and deep the religious fifth column has become. These traitors and subversives are hell-bent on undoing the Revolution of 1776 and will stop at nothing to destroy our inherited freedoms.
They are mad. Stark raving mad. I keep thinking ‘it must be something in the water’, it just refuses to scan that people in this age would come up with this.
Would couples like me and the spouse, who have no children, be forced to reproduce or risk having our marriage annulled? After all, if the reason for marriage is to produce children (as the Religious Reich claims in their arguments against gay marriage), it should follow that people who can’t (or won’t) produce children shouldn’t be entitled to the “privileges” of marriage…
I read quite a bit of that darned thing, if not all of it. Simply horrifying.
Interesting that various people here picked up on certain elements of it — others stood out for me.
Why on god’s green earth ANYONE would want to exercise this kind of control over other people’s lives is totally beyond me. Yes, I get the ultimate adgenda, still don’t understand what underlies it.
(Did you note that a donor can’t be compensated for more than the costs of the procedure? — no more egg buying…)
this is probably the most heavily linked diary in the history of BT. Right now there are probably several dozen sites linking here. One of them is:
http://www.zattevrienden.be/
I am SHOCKED… 🙂
Has anybody emailed her about it? 😀
Congratulations on the success of your diary, Ductape!
Paging Margaret Atwood…
Your responses crack me up more than the bill itself. Berating people on the right for being “Taliban” while being the “Taliban” for the left is hypocritical.
For one, the title “New law will require marriage as a legal condition of motherhood” is less than the truth. It is slanted right from the start to make people this applies to ALL motherhood: IT DOESN’T. Well, it does for homosexuals. But it still is a blanket statement that is not true.
And to end with the comment below of “Unauthorized Sexual Intercourse bill” is factually incorrect as well. There is no mention of Sexual INTERCOURSE because that is not what the bill is about.
There are standards applied to adoptive parents, and these individuals are trying to apply those same type of laws and regulations to those individuals who wish to have children outside the traditional (SEX) means.
I am of the camp who believes all regulations of the government will eventually lead to this kind of garbage, but those people on the left that fear this the most should realize it is because of their own party’s regulation-oriented politicians that the republicans have used a page from your book to pass their agenda. The next time you cry about people having to wear mandatory seat belts, helmets on motorcycles, etc. I hope you know it is the same thing as this.
You just got someone to bite your ass back, and I find this hilarious because it will never be a law that would affect me. (This law applies to a very small minority of people who get pregnant in this fashion.)
Because there are little to no regulations in this particular area, I’m sure this will pass. Will it pass with marriage as a stipulation? Probably not. It can always be considered unconstitutional if done that way as well.
Chill out for a second before you doomsayers act like the feds are going to bash down your door tomorrow. Sheesh. Perhaps you should consider some medication?
Slippery slope arguments and doomsaying aside, even if this were to pass intact, I am pretty sure you can get to another state from most of Indiana in a relatively short timeframe. If one has the money to pay for this procedure, surely they can pay for gasoline to the border and back.
How many of you are even IN Indiana? If you aren’t then who the hell cares? Do you really think this would automatically apply to California or Massachusetts? Take a reality pill.
Seriously…I looked up many of your info and did not see ONE PERSON from Indiana. Do you know how this law would apply to you? IT WOULD NOT.
Does someone have to explain that there is something called “Federal” law which applies to the entire United States, and “State” law which applies to your particular state. There also is local law that applies on a county and city level as well.
This applies to INDIANA. My god, you are all freakin’ nuts. You all scare me more than the Republicans do, to be honest.
url is http://ductapefatwa.blogspot.com
I bet you will do a really good one!
You can post it here if you like, or in comments on the blog, whichever you prefer.
I JUST found this:
http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/10/05/gay_ban.html
Awwwwww…. They dropped this bill already. I’m sure you’ll have some excuse so you can keep up the name calling to your “Taliban” enemies.
Seriously, do you think the US is like the Taliban? Did you spend time in Afghanistan under their rule? Did you have a sister/mother stoned to death after she was raped? Did you get beaten because your face was uncovered and seen by someone?
Lay off the rhetoric and, perhaps, someone will finally listen to what you have to say.
I hope you’ll spend some time perusing the site before you banish us to the realm of the rhetorical obsolete. You will find some of the most informed, passionate activists in the country, whether it’s for the cause of peace, racial equality or reproductive rights. In other words, do some of that “listening” you are preaching.
The only reason you are posting this on this site is because you are terrified about what most of America has to say…
Have you no decency?
HAHAHA! I didn’t read all your responses, but I just did. Oh, god (which I don’t believe in)…that was a riot. I recommend YOU ALL go back and read them yourself.
Even someone had to bash Bush on this. As if Bush has something to do with Indiana’s state legislature.
Do you know you all sound EXACTLY like the people you hate? If you can’t see this, you have a problem.
If you can admit you overreacted and/or misunderstood the law and who it applied to, that is understandable. We all make mistakes.
I knew this bill was going to be a non-issue. But to see people from out of the country and California get worked up was pretty funny.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the rule that governs this site. It’s really simple: Don’t be a prick.
If you want to debate based on the facts, fine. If you want to make it personal, prepare to be troll-rated into oblivion. BTW, this is not an invitation for further discussion about the rule which is endorsed by the entire community. It’s simply a notification.
Good morning catnip,
Congrats with FP rights.
I’m afraid our local little troll will be unable to read this hidden thread. Maybe tag on your comment to the comment where DTF responded to him. It is still visible (and I think we should leave it as such..).
I was rather upset about all of this myself, having emailed a bunch of people and intending to start making phone calls today.
I pulled up NUVO’s site to see if it was posted yet (it was), and upon reading the comments came across this piece on the Indy Star.
Apparently the legislation has been dropped by Senator Miller. Her simple statement was, “The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission.”
I called anyway to confirm this, left a voice mail message.
You might want to update the post with this information as people aren’t likely to see this comment buried beneath everything else. I think everyone should still be cautious though, that this bill doesn’t resurface in some other form.
Oops, sorry for the lack of line breaks. I think I submitted it incorrectly.
I think this new legislation is great…..its a rare glimmer of common sense something more and more people seem to be lacking.
Only i think it should go further and there should be mandatory abortions for anyone breaking this law.
Good Luck Sen Miller!
Thankfully-this crazy legislation has died a quiet death in Indiana, at least for now.
Don’t be surprised if at some point in the future–the beastie rears its ugly head in some fashion in Indiana or another state.
I have noted that in recent years, the conservative right has a way of floating trial balloons such as this measure in one place. If the proposed legislation is initially unsuccessful in one place–the idea stays alive and comes up either in another state or the same state in some modified form.
If those proposing the new concept legislation can create both the language of the legislation and a strategy for “selling” it in one place- like a species of a noxious invasive weed– similar measures pop up elsewhere–often times legislation like this gets passed in a stealthy manner by tacking the thing onto something else that is non-controversial and has bi-partisan support.
This happens because sadly, very conservative Republicans are in control of many state legislatures and in spite of their claims to want to “get the government off the backs of the people,” these folks seem to love to promulgate measures like this that put the chains tighter on the populace when it comes to things like sex, reproductive rights, and the like.
If you look at many measures like this that the right brings up, the language from one state to another is strikingly similar reflecting those changes necessary for each state based upon differences in the respective legislative structures.
So Indiana and America–look out–this thing is most likely not dead–it will simply come back in some other form either in Indiana or elsewhere.
Look at how quickly “defense of marriage” bills and related measures popped up in so many different states in a relatively short time period.