1984
Apparently while I was enjoying my brief respite from the insanity of life, Indiana lawmakers tried to introduce legislation to regulate assisted reproduction. Before a doctor can apply technologies that can lead to conception, the couple must receive a certificate indicating a satisfactory completion of the required assessment procedures.1
Oh, puhleeze. How transparent can you be? It's just another attempt to legislate discrimination against homosexuals. "Goodness gracious! Look! There's a way for homosexuals to have children! We'd better do something about that!" That it also snares those immoral cohabitators is an added bonus.
It was initially justified by the fact that a similar process is required for adoption, another "artificial" means of obtaining children. Adoption is commerce and as such should be regulated by the government. If they are going to start regulating artificial insemination, how long before they start looking at licensing children in general? You know Rick Santorum would love that. He already wants to monitor your sexual activity and make sure it fits into appropriate standards of behavior.
The bill was eventually withdrawn because it grew "too complicated." Yeah, they couldn't figure out a way to discriminate without forcing all those procreatively challenged, married heterosexuals to submit to onerous governmental procedures and invasion of their personal life.
Why doesn't someone introduce legislation that requires a certificate of satisfactorily completing an stupidity assessment before being allowed to run for public office? We already proclaim felons unfit for public office. Can't we expand the definition of unfit to include idiots, too?
Hat Tip: Nobody's Business
October 14th, 2005 - 12:56
Actually, the bill would have prevented unmarried heterosexual couples, singles, etc. as well. It wasn’t geared at just homosexuals — making it even scarier in a way. There are wingnuts out there who actually think this shit is their business.
I blogged on it Uncorrelated with a hat tip to Gay Orbit.
October 14th, 2005 - 13:52
No the language wasn’t gay specific, only because blatant discrimination is falling out of vogue. Notice the marriage debate is not about prohibiting faggots from tying the knot (except in the most fringe of discussions), but about protecting the foundation of society.
Artificial insemination has been regularly practiced on humans since the turn of the 20th century.1 Flagrant cohabitation has been around since at least the 1960s. Why do you think the sudden concern about statutory silence regarding assisted reproduction? It’s not because more and more homos are using it as a means of having children? People who are otherwise fertile getting around anatomical difficulties?
Surrogacy, especially in the case of male couples, can certainly get ugly, but I’m not sure how it differs materially from adoption. In the funeral industry you have two types of customers: those seeking services “pre-need” and those seeking services “at need.” Seems to me surrogacy is just a “pre-need” version of adoption which is “at need.”
Nevertheless, a case could be made for addressing those social issues. However, it is not my impression that is what this bill was about. It was about restricting access to artificial means of conception to married, heterosexual (redundant in this context) couples. Since religious activity was listed as one of the considerations in the assessment, it could also be inferred that irreligious couples would have a harder time acquiring the necessary approval.