Indiana Considers Ban On Lesbian Pregnancies

  1. http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/10/100405birthBan.htm

    ...Among the determining factors is a requirement that the women be married to a person of the opposite sex. The assessment would contain a description of the family lifestyle and automatically exclude lesbians. Women would also have to provide proof that they have participated in faith-based or church activities...
    •  
  2. 32 Comments

  3. by   Jessy_RN
    Seriously is this necessary? As long as a child is being cared for and treated well, I have no care who, what, when, or why anyone would want to have one.

    Being married (the opposite sex or not) does not guarantee that they will be excellent or great candidates for parents.
  4. by   canoehead
    Selfish, egocentric, inhuman idiots.
  5. by   NRSKarenRN
    whoa! all the talk by republicans about getting the government out of our lives and paperwork reduction just got blown out of the water by this piece of proposed legislation!



    section 1. ic 31-9-2-9.5 is added to the indiana code as a new section to read as follows [effective july 1, 2006]: sec. 9.5. "assisted reproduction"








    sec. 12. (a) before intended parents may commence assisted reproduction,



    20 the intended parents shall obtain an assessment from a licensed child placing agency






    21 in the intended parents' state of residence.



    22 (b) the assessment must follow the normal practice for assessments in a
    23 domestic infant adoption procedure and must include the following information:


    24 (1) the intended parents' purpose for the assisted reproduction.
    25 (2) the fertility history of the intended parents, including the


    26 pregnancy history and response to pregnancy losses of the woman.
    27 (3) an acknowledgment by the intended parents that the child may


    28 not be the biological child of at least one (1) of the intended parent

    29 depending on the type of artificial reproduction procedure used.
    30 (4) a list of the intended parents' family and friend support system.

    20061258.001/84 (9) october 3, 2005 (1:24pm)




    (obdar)







    1 (5) a plan for sharing any known genetic information with the child.






    2 (6) personal information about each intended parent, including the



    3 following:
    4 (a) family of origin.



    5 (b) values.


    6 (c) relationships.
    7 (d) education.
    8 (e) employment and income.




    9 (f) hobbies and talents.10 (g) physical description, including the general health of the


    11 individual.




    12 (h) birth verification.






    13 (i) personality description, including the strengths and






    14 weaknesses of each intended parent.


    15 (7) description of any children residing in the intended parents' home.




    16 (8)a verification and evaluation of the intended parents' marital






    17 relationship, including:






    18 (a) the shared values and interests between the individuals;


    19 (b) the manner in which conflict between the individuals is
    556620 resolved; and
    21 (c) a history of the intended parents' relationship.




    22 (9) documentation of the dissolution of any prior marriage and an






    23 assessment of the impact of the prior marriage on the intended






    24 parents' relationship.






    25 (10) a description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents






    26 include a description of individual participation in faith-based or


    27 church activities, hobbies, and other interests.




    28 (11) the intended parents' child rearing expectations and values






    29 (12) a description of the home and community, including verification






    30 of the safety and security of the home.






    1 (13) child care plans.






    2 (14) statement of the assets, liabilities, investments, and ability of the






    3 intended parents to manage finances, including the most recently filed






    4 tax forms.






    5 (15) a review of the local police records, the state and violent offender






    6 directory, and a criminal history check as set forth in subsection (c).






    7 (16) a letter of reference by a friend or family member






    8 (17) a written consent from each donor, if known, to use of the






    9 donation in the assisted reproduction medical procedure.






    10 (18) the recommendation for participation in assisted reproduction.






    11 (c) except as provided in subsection (d), the licensed child placing agency


    12 shall conduct a criminal history check on each intended parent and any other




    13 person who is currently residing in the intended parents' home.


    ....
    Last edit by NRSKarenRN on Oct 5, '05
  6. by   Tweety
    "Planned Parenthood of Indiana president Betty Cockrum calls it chilling and government intrusion on a person's private life."

    I agree with the above sentiments.
  7. by   Jessy_RN
    Quote from Tweety
    "Planned Parenthood of Indiana president Betty Cockrum calls it chilling and government intrusion on a person's private life."

    I agree with the above sentiments.
    I think it's beyond intrusion.................it's like a dictatorship against my wants, needs, desire, freedom, and lifestyle. Truly appaling.
  8. by   SharonH, RN
    Pardon my language........


    But who do those pious, self-righteous, religiously insane people think they are? The far right has lost their Jesus-addled minds.
    Last edit by Ted on Oct 6, '05 : Reason: TOS Issue
  9. by   jnette
    Wow.

    I agree with Jess above.

    This is appalling. What was that Steph posted on another thread just the other day (the China Celebrates thread) ?

    Something about their gov't. control and intrusions into matters of reproduction and personal privacy? And how we can be grateful for OUR "freedoms" ?

    *ahem*

    Hate it, Steph, but it doth appear OUR "freedoms" aren't all they're chalked up to be, either. And they are rapidly dwindling, as well. Just gotta look CLOSELY, because WE have more "subtle" controls, but it is control nonetheless. And there are a lot more such gov't. controls than we like to think or admit.
  10. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from jnette
    Wow.

    I agree with Jess above.

    This is appalling. What was that Steph posted on another thread just the other day (the China Celebrates thread) ?

    Something about their gov't. control and intrusions into matters of reproduction and personal privacy? And how we can be grateful for OUR "freedoms" ?

    *ahem*

    Hate it, Steph, but it doth appear OUR "freedoms" aren't all they're chalked up to be, either. And they are rapidly dwindling, as well. Just gotta look CLOSELY, because WE have more "subtle" controls, but it is control nonetheless. And there are a lot more such gov't. controls than we like to think or admit.
    Yes, this is crazy - but it will never fly. The difference is an armed citizenry

    Oh and Jesus never addled anyone . . . . . people who purport to believe in God/Jesus addle themselves. God is not happy about that. But I don't blame Him for human beings failings.

    steph
  11. by   SmilingBluEyes
    Quote from jnette
    Wow.

    I agree with Jess above.

    This is appalling. What was that Steph posted on another thread just the other day (the China Celebrates thread) ?

    Something about their gov't. control and intrusions into matters of reproduction and personal privacy? And how we can be grateful for OUR "freedoms" ?

    *ahem*

    Hate it, Steph, but it doth appear OUR "freedoms" aren't all they're chalked up to be, either. And they are rapidly dwindling, as well. Just gotta look CLOSELY, because WE have more "subtle" controls, but it is control nonetheless. And there are a lot more such gov't. controls than we like to think or admit.
    I agree. They have ZERO "right" to all the information Karen discussed in her post.. NONE whatsoever. This really angers me. :angryfire
  12. by   mercyteapot
    The first thought I had was that this law would never pass a Constitutional test. Then, my heart sank when I thought about the make up of the new Supreme Court.
  13. by   babynurselsa
    I am nearly speechless.
    Though I wish some of these requirements could be imposed on ANY person before parenthood regardless of method.
    Ohh so you've been busted 13 times for Meth?????
    Ohhh so you can't remember which guy might be the baby daddy????
    Ohhh so your other 11 children have been removed and rights terminated????
    So how many skin graft operations did your 2 year old require after you scalded him in the tub for soiling himself?
    Ohh sure methadone is much better for your unborn baby than heroin....
    HMMMM I guess I can think of some other sectors of society that might serve children better to be screened a little closer.
  14. by   Roy Fokker
    Too busy laughing my pants off.

    It's all I can do when confronted by stupidity such as this.

    Limited government? Privacy? Freedom of choice? What alien tongues do you all speak?

close