From an upcoming article in an Indianapolis magazine:
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 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 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

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

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.
A quick link to the proposed legislation is here (http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/prelim/HFCO04.pdf) (it's a pdf file).

As a native born Hoosier I'm curious as to the possible ramifications of this.

Will this only apply to lab style births or will there be fringe politicians that will try and apply this to old fashioned shotgun required weddings?

Fandros

And this is for some other reason than preventing same sex couples ala Ellen & Portia or Melissa and her S/O from becoming parents?

Or even single lesbian women?

Since the services are not cheap, I do not think those applying for them are going to be often found on the welfare rolls so without the issue of state monies being used to support these children the only other answer I can see is that it is the Religious Right wanting to be sure only their ideal of a parent is able to make use of the technology.

Is America going to still be a free country in the near future? :(

The obvious next question is what about people that have children when married and then get divorced? Refuse divorce? Take away the kids? Huge fines and jail time? Is a single divorced mother any different than an unmarried single mother? Do you query the marital status at conception or birth? Is Jennifer Garner going to jail? So much retardation in the world of politics today.

Divorce isn't as much of a problem as annulment. In a divorce, the marriage remains a fact, but is ended. In an annulment, the union *never happened*.

You have to have a liscense to drive a car, own a gun, hunt, fish, etc etc, but any fucking moron out there can have a kid, with exceptions those infertile for whatever reason but by and large anyone can. While I question the reasons behind this law, I kind of wonder if something like this won't become a necessity in the future, but for other reasons.

Unless we don't keep spreading out, we've got a long ways to go before over-population, I think (if that's what you're referring to, Elemak). Not to mention, Indiana isn't exactly Mexico City. If I had to guess, I'd say this is a way to stop lesbian couples from having kids, but I could be wrong.

It feels a lot like a totalitarian state with all the red-tape bureaucracy. What's going to be the future? You need to apply for a reproductive permit before having sex with the intention to produce a baby? You need to be married to a woman to have children?

Say "hello" to 1984.

I'm certainly not moving to Indiana.

This law is what Roliel states it to be: If you are a lesbo, don't even consider making an attempt at parentage in Indiana. It has nothing to do with population control, considering that earth's population seems to be kept in check by economic means for the most part, without legislation. Heck, alot of Europe is going to be suffering from population decline. It only applies to children concieved other than through intercourse and has nothing to do with Fandros's shotgun weddings. You can still continue to knock up as many broads as you want in Indiana with no need to worry about the messy commitment of being married and an actual parent

Perhaps one day there might not be laws drafted to specifically target a particular minority in such a way as to strip freedoms and rights otherwise enjoyed by the masses. Leaving the religious implications out of such draft, it pretty much stinks of Jim Crow type legislation. Laws should be passed to curb problems that threaten the well being of the state, and since its a good guess that lesbo couples have probably been doing this type of "parentage" for years with no harmful impact on society, then why attempt to pass such a law now that effects such a small pocket of the state's population? Is it just to set precedence alone?

You said it--legislation reminiscent of the Jim Crow era.

considering that earth's population seems to be kept in check by economic means for the most part, without legislation.

see the entire continent of africa. China legislates reproduction, and it's being discussed in India as well. The US has plenty of land and food production to support many more people, but the world over, that's simply not true.

edit to add: I don't even need to discuss a law that won't be passed, or will be declared unconstitutional.

Africa is kept in check by poverty, war and disease. That continent still has yet to get its act together. There is still a net gain, but other parts of the world are starting to look at a net loss. China, yah. India, why not. If they want to legislate human reproduction..so be it. Perhaps as their societies advance and become less rural and more urban, they will shift away from having loads of children in order to work the land and their populations may receed some just as Europe's is now. People who are urban and of a more white collar bent tend to have less kids and have them later because career tends to put a damper on family life due to the time to commit. Anyway, I added the "for the most part" in there as implication that what I said is not across the board.

Yah, the earth can probably hold alot more people in theory as far as available land, but there just is not enough resources to go too much higher in human population without creating a world that yields nothing but a life of hardship for all those born onto it. If things get scarce, such as energy and food, you can bet there will be less people eventually because another mouth to feed under a roof means alot more expense. On top of that, the earth itself will regulate the human population to where it wants it. The news is full of plenty of examples of how this occurs.

And yes, its a stupid law that won't pass. There probably isn't even an intention of passing it as its currently written. Its probably more apt to do its damage by the controversy alone that may lead to something that will pass down the road.

Just a quick rebuttal to a common misconception (no pun intended ;) ), I agree with Roliel and Lummus' interpretation of the intent of this bill otherwise (although I think it's also clear that there's an attempt to 'get the foot in the door' with regards to legislating reproduction and setting a precedent to be expanded on in the zealous fever dreams of this bills' supporters), however:

earth's population seems to be kept in check by economic means for the most part, without legislation.

...happens *not* to be true, at least not yet. Earth's human population load is continuing to increase, despite the population sink in Western Europe (made up for, btw, by immigration) and an increase in the death rate in Sub-Saharan Africa due to HIV (with an average fertility of > 5 children per woman, still at a doubling time of < 35 years). We're currently at a growth rate of ~ 1.3%, adding 87 million people (the equivalent of a Mexico) to the world's population each year, although HIV and the demographic transition in some developing nations has reduced projections of the world's 2050 population from about 9.4 billion (made in 1990) to 8.9 billion.

The bad news is that, given current trends, we're headed towards a total global population of between 11.1 and 12 billion by the end of the century before we stabilize (and assuming that overall fertility continues to drop at the same rate). Considering that half of the world's population lives in poverty, and 20% in dire conditions now, while it *is* true that death-rate solutions do eventually work, they also result in a lot of suffering, and perhaps more importantly from a pragmatic standpoint, resource degradation. To the person who stated that the US can feed a lot more people than it currently does: While this is so to a point, we are actually 1) currently using most of our feasibly arable land, and at intensity levels that are resulting in resource (topsoil, watershed) degradation and environmental pollution and 2) sending much of our produce (notably grains) already to countries who don't have food self-sufficiency. If we were willing to eat less meat, however...

I'm against mandatory fertility control, myself, but I also don't think that the world can afford to be excessively pro-natalist at this juncture, either.

There are quite a few good sites that deal with the topic of population growth (and the data on earth's geometric population increase over the last 2 centuries will shock most) out there, by government, academia, and various world organizations, here are a few that contain basic primers, for those who are interested:

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html

http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/04/0417_wlpopulation.html

Regards,
Nydia

P.S. As an aside that possibly only a biologist could love: there's been a lot of concern recently about crop monoculture and disease, considering how dependent so many mouths are on so few crop species these days. Its also interesting to learn about not only how people, but their plants, get around the world. A recent, and mammoth, study on the genetic history of potatoes, conducted at the University of Wisconsin and mentioned on the BBC the other day, has discovered that all potatoes currently in cultivation on earth can be traced to a single common ancestor, about 7,000 years old, from Peru...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4306906.stm

To the person who stated that the US can feed a lot more people than it currently does: While this is so to a point, we are actually 1) currently using most of our feasibly arable land, and at intensity levels that are resulting in resource (topsoil, watershed) degradation and environmental pollution and 2) sending much of our produce (notably grains) already to countries who don't have food self-sufficiency. If we were willing to eat less meat, however...


The obvious solution here is to start eating people.

The obvious solution here is to start eating people.
The National Health Council agrees (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41236).

the University of Wisconsin and mentioned on the BBC the other day, has discovered that all potatoes currently in cultivation on earth can be traced to a single common ancestor, about 7,000 years old, from Peru...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4306906.stm

Further proof the Irish were the first to visit the western Hemisphere.

I laughed.


http://www.boomantribune.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2005/10/3/223530/406

My God! Soylent Green are people!?!?

Still a good movie after all these years....:rolleyes:

The logical outcome from overpopulation will be war eventually as those who have the resources will be coveted by those who don't. imho. We don't have to worry about it atm, but there will be a time when it may and most likely will become a serious problem. (already is in a few spots in this world)
Also agree with those in that this law won't pass unless our elected officials are complete and utter morons. (errr, no more than usual i mean.)

The obvious solution here is to start eating people.

Soylent Green, anyone?:eek:

No one would be surprised at the bill not becoming law, but it's a little more unusual for the sponsor to drop (http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=3942770) it.

Miller said earlier this week that state law does not have regulations on assisted reproduction and should have similar requirements to adoption in Indiana.

So, does this means that Indiana has a state law already on the books banning non-married folks (or homosexuals, for that matter, since they can't legally marry in most of the US yet) from adopting? I'm late for my night lab and haven't had time to look, but I think perhaps we're getting closer to the crux of the matter here...

Regards,
Nydia

According to the Indiana adoption processes (http://www.in.gov/dcs/adoption/faq.html#_Toc33513136), it seems pretty clear that they are looking for traditional married couples.

The world is not full of traditional families. We can't legislate perfect situations for the parents or children of the world, not in the lab and not on the street. We can only match a prospective parent's good intentions with his/her commitment to that love. If I were a ward of the state, I would rather have someone good that cared about me, instead of someone who was married and qualified with the state to get more money if they took me onboard.