I wish I didn't believe it.

[pecunium]

Indiana has some odd problems (DST and which time zone they happen to be in being one of them. It's a big deal in Indiana. The sort of thing Governors can be turned out of office because of).

But the Republicans in the state legislature are trying to make it illegal for non-married persons to engage in assisted pregnancy.

Yep. If one isn't married, then one can't use in vitro nor a sperm donor, nor an egg-donor, nor a host/surrogate mother.

Nor, if one isn't married, may one travel to Indiana to have any of the steps in such a procedure done.

The .pdf is here. It's 22 pages and hard to follow. The ten pages of definitions are confusing.

Highlights.

The basic procedures are the same as for adoption. Petition the probate court, with either a completed, or pending, criminal background check. Most felonies are exempt after five years, most misdemeanors after one year. Certain felonies, and misdemeanors, are bars to granting the petition, regardless of elapsed time (things which predispose the court to think one might be a danger to children).

Petitioners must both be married.

Some of it makes sense (the removal of all legal obligation from sperm and egg donors).

Most of it is chilling.

If one is not married, Indiana makes it basically illegal to have kids without sex (this may be the best thing to happen to the Massachussett's marriage industry). No deciding one want's a kid, and choosing a person with whom to have it, unless you've tied the knot; with someone.

What are the penalties.

On first blush, not so great. Anyone who takes part in an "unauthorized artificial reproduction" (I am not making up the language) is guilty of a Class B Misdemeanor. Anyone who knowingly falsifies information on a "petition to establish parentage" shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Doctors might worry about losing their license, but most people who really want kids (enough to spend the money to go artifical) won't really balk at that. A fine, and maybe some jail time (but probably not, because the lawyer will argue that this was all done for the sake of having a child, and loss of parental attention would be against the best interests of the child; "$5,000 and six-months probation!" Bang, goes the gavel and the family goes home).

Except for Chapter 3 § 10. ((a) A gestational agreement that is not judicially validated under
section 5 of this chapter is unenforceable.
(b) If a birth results under a gestational agreement that is not judicially
validated, a court may issue any order that the court believes is in the best interests
of the child, including an order for custody or support.
(c) A court may order the intended parents of a nonvalidated gestational agreement to pay:
(1) support for the child; and
(2) any fees as determined by the court..


Further, if the couple (for only a couple may enter into such a pregnancy under this law) is using a "gestational mother" and such a person is married, the husband of such "gestational" mother may terminate the arrangement; unilaterally, but only before she gets pregnant.

Which shows me one way to tweak the system, all it takes is two married couples willing to go through the hassle of one being the petitioners, the others being the "hosts" a pregnancy getting started the husband of the "host" getting cold feet.

But that's a lot of of work, and still means one has to be married.

I also don't see why the court has jurisdiction for 180 days after the birth of a child under the act, but if a "gestational mother" is used notification of birth has to be made within 300 days.

Happily if a single host mother should get married, the husband can't cancel the agreement, even if she isn't pregnant.

For those who might think going to Mass. and getting married would make it possible for homosexual couples to have kids in Indiana, think again.

Chapter 5 &sec;Sec. 12. (a) Before intended parents may enter into a gestational agreement
4 and before conception occurs, the intended parents shall obtain an assessment from
5 a licensed child placing agency in the intended parents' state of residence.
6 (b) The assessment must follow the normal practice for assessments in a
7 domestic infant adoption procedure and must include the following information:
8 (1) The intended parents' motivation for entering into a gestational
9 agreement.
10 (2) The fertility history of the intended parents, including the
11 pregnancy history and response to pregnancy losses of the woman.
12 (3) An acknowledgment by the intended parents that the child may
13 not be genetically related to at least one (1) of the intended parents
14 depending on the type of medical procedure used.
15 (4) A list of the intended parents' family and friend support system.
16 (5) A plan for sharing any known genetic information with the child.
17 (6) Personal information about each intended parent, including the
18 following:
19 (A) Family of origin.
20 (B) Values.
21 (C) Relationships.
22 (D) Education.
23 (E) Employment and income.
24 (F) Hobbies and talents.
25 (G) Physical description, including the general health of the
26 individual.
27 (H) Birth verification.
28 (I) Personality description, including the strengths and
29 weaknesses of each intended parent.

(8) A verification and evaluation of the intended parents' marital
2 relationship, including:
3 (A) the shared values and interests between the individuals;
4 (B) the manner in which conflict between the individuals is
5 resolved; and
6 (C) a history of the intended parents' relationship.
7 (9) Documentation of the dissolution of any prior marriage and an
8 assessment of the impact of the prior marriage on the intended
9 parents' relationship.
10 (10) A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents,
11 include a description of individual participation in faith-based or
12 church activities, hobbies, and other interests.
13 (11) The intended parents' child rearing expectations and values.
14 (12) A description of the home and community, including verification
15 of the safety and security of the home.
16 (13) Child care plans.
17 (14) Statement of the assets, liabilities, investments, and ability of the
18 intended parents to manage finances, including the most recently filed
19 tax forms.
20 (15) A review of the local police records, the state and violent offender
21 directory, and a criminal history check as set forth in subsection (d).
22 (16) A letter of reference by a friend or family member.
23 (17) A written consent from:
24 (A) the gestational mother; and
25 (B) a donor, if used and if known, to use of the donation in the
26 medical procedure.
27 (18) The recommendation for participation in the gestational
28 agreement.

So the placement agency gets to decide on the parents fitness to have a kid. Never mind, as lawgeekgirl points out the Supreme Court has said having kids is a fundamental right (they have also upheld, I think, the right of states to prevent homosexual couples from adopting so the fundamental right seems to be getting pregnant, not actually having kids)the state of Indiana has decided anything other than sex equals adoption. That's the part that's chilling. Being a couple who has fertility problems means that getting hormone therapy to exite eggs, or an in vitro procedure is the same as adopting a ten year-old. The state gets to decide if you are moral enough to have kids, just because you aren't fertile enough to do it without help.

Comments

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

oh, it's so much more chilling than that. In order for the married couple to get PERMISSION (fucking permission from the state to have a child - hello, interference with what the Supreme Court has termed a fundamental right under the Constitution) for a doctor to treat them with IVF, etc., they have to be certified as Fit Parents by a state agency. A state agency who will look to see if you are churchy enough and have high morals, or else you're right out. They want to deny children to anyone who isn't godly enough for them, period.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I forgot to mention that.

It's a dog's breakfast of a law. Definitions sprinkled like salt and all sorts of circular bits that might be in opposition to other parts.

By the time I hit the latter portions of Chapter 5 my brain was getting mushy.

But I'll go edit now, because you just pointed out to me why that section is in there.

Sigh.

TK

[bifemmefatale.livejournal.com]

Not just churchy enough but rich enough, and no doubt in the end white enough, and indubitably straight enough, since lesbians can't get married in IN.

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

agreed.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Yes, but this lets them get around the full-faith and credit the have to give Mass.

TK

[red-silk-robe.livejournal.com]

Indiana has always had problems and has been the Midwest's flash point for weird, ultra-conservative twists like this. Keep in mind it is Indiana, not the south where the KKK coalesced and strengthened in the late 19-teens and 20s. It has always been a little stranger than its neighboring states and I've never really understood why. I downloaded the PDF but I'll have to go through it later today.

Thanks for the heads up. As the proud owner of a uterus, I take womens political issues and womens' health issues seriously. Such a pity in this day and age that there is so little separation between our health and political hot buttons.

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

I disagree. Indiana has always been conservative, and likes to think of itself as Godly. However, historically, it has been just right of center. It's not Kansas.

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

in the interests of full disclosure, I was born and raised in Indiana, attended college and law school there, and majored in both history and english (taking more than a smattering of Indiana History courses in the process). I also did my senior honors thesis in college on the Klan in Indiana in the 20s. So, I may be a tad reactionary when I see these kinds of statements.

[athenais.livejournal.com]

That is so disturbing I really wish I hadn't read it at work where I can't respond in length.

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

In the 1920s, the KKK has as much, or more, clout in Indiana than in states like Mississippi or Alabama. We should never forget this, when we consider the sort of wingnut wackjob bigotries this state tends to emit. The career of D. C. Stephenson should serve as a reminder of what these defenders of womanhood were really like.

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

Stephenson was really more of an opportunist than a burn them all and let hell sort them out kind of racist. He was a racist, that's for sure, but not a True Believer in The Holy Cause.

In the 20s, the Klan was so pervasive that it was thought of more along the lines of the Freemasons. Everyone who wanted to get anywhere in power (national, state, or local level) needed to belong. Also, the Klan was anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic as much as anti-Black. They were billing themselves as the only organization or power that would protect the little guy from the invasion of those who looked different, spoke different, had different customs, and worshipped a different God. It was fearmongering, pure and simple. Only a percentage of Klan members were filled with the kind of hatred you see in the Klan today. Not that this excuses this shameful part in Indiana history, but it does need perspective to fully understand why it happened and how it could have been such a large force in the state.

Also, this is the time period when the Klan nearly got one of its own elected to the White House. Indiana was one of many states where the Klan flourished at this time.

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

This is why studying history is good (unless you give in to the Newt Gingich urge to see history merely as an account of Insiring Things Wot Great Men Did); you get some background and perspective on events, and can see why things seem to keep happening over and over again. Know-nothingism in the 1850s, the Klan in the 1920s, and so on.
Stephenson's rise to prominence is a great example of how the unprincipled opportunist can run amok when given too much trust by his followers, which is something everyone who fell into line behind Tom Delay et al. should keep in mind. Just because you think you're on they're side doesn't mean they are on your side--sometimes I feel like I should have this tatooed on some of my relative's hands, so they'll be reminded on a regular basis...

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

he's really a fascinating study; it just made my skin crawl. I like to say he was the first one to franchise the Klan.

I think anytime you see fear ruling people's choices and a corresponding rise of nationalism and jingoistic patriotism, you have a breeding ground for this kind of intolerance and stomping on civil liberties. History repeats itself indeed. It makes me sad. Also filled with The Rage.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I know.

In addition to having been a resident of Indiana, many moons ago (Bremen, Elkhart and the Indiana side of Michigan City, when it was a small place) I read Orcinus and the Southern Poverty Law Center and too many other depressing chronicles of the idiots we breed in this country.

This batch just happens to be being a tad subtle.

TK

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

I don't know what happened to Indiana in the last 20 years that caused this rightward jerk in the GOP. It's always been conservative, and yes, there have always been intolerant assholes in Indiana, some of them elected. But the kind of God Squaders elected in the last 10-15 years makes me scared of the direction of the state. The average Joe Hoosier isn't like this, why are they letting this bunch rule their roost? It's the same complete and utter confusion I have about the national GOP and the direction the country is going. I think Indiana is a microcosm for the nation's conservatives.

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

Part of it, I think, is that the traditional conservative power brokers, as well as Republicans generally, got excited by the prospect of being the Ins, after having been the Outs for so long, and assumed their allies could be controlled. As my great-grandfather said, you need a long spoon if you decide to eat with the devil. I guess this one wasn't long enough.
To convert a writing term I've seen matociquala and sartorias employ to discuss politics instead, I'd say that the crowd of nutjobs we're watching in action here are very good at hitting the squids that make Joe Hoosier (and his friends, relations, and equivalents in the other 49 states) twitch and jump. The less careful Joe Hoosier and the rest are at looking into matters (whether it's too complicated, too depressing, too scary, too ambiguous--Joe hates to think he might be tempted into being unpatriotic or disrespectful) the more likely Joe & company are to be led down the garden path here. To take another example, when people get going on the inheritance taxes thing, they always talk in terms of family farms and small family businesses being threatened, when neither of these are typically really endangered by the current federal estate tax law. This is because Joe and friends care about family farms and small family businesses, and not about how much money Jenna and Barbara jr. will eventually inherit.

I can't remember which poll or study in 2004 showed that the people who were dogged supporters of Bush tended to be less well-informed, while those who were saying "anyone but Bush--bring on a giant squid and I'll vote for it" tended to be better informed, and this included people who ordinarily defined themselves as conservative. The more they looked at issues like the budget deficit, the mess in Iraq, and other items, the more inclined they became to go against Bushco. The conservatives didn't stop being conservative; they just felt that the things they thought mattered weren't being addressed.

This could very well be what's happening here; people have been given a superficial meme they can get behind*, while the legislation the meme supports is a little different and more controlling than Joe is told--to find that out, Joe has to dig on his own.

*Say, an anonymous sperm/egg donor should be healthy, and shouldn't be held liable for support after the fact; surrogate mothers should be held to certain standards, and in such arrangements, both parties' rights should be defined by law.

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

I wholeheartedly agree. I have watched the sausage being made, and it scared the bejesus out of me. People would not read the bills, (or just skim them), and rely on the bill's author or the lobbyist to tell them why they needed to support it. Or if the governor wanted it, they'd vote for it. Or if the lobby group gave them money, they'd vote for it. Legislators who were ethical (and their constituents who weren't whole-hog behind the real movement that wanted the bill) would accept things at face value and dig no further or consider nothing beyond the face of the bill or the day of its enactment. I would go spastic on a regular basis. It's one of the chief reasons I am no longer working in a purely politcial job.

I remember a tame example: a legislator introduced a bill that would require schools to put calcium-enhanced water products into the vending machines. The ostensible reason (which was bought lock, stock, and barrel by more than a few school districts) was that kids in today's junk food world lack calcium. The studies they used to promote this idea were flawed, and the efficacy of the product they were pitching was questionable at best but you know, whatever. Say you accepted that kids lack calcium, and this was a legitimate public policy initiative. The bill's author was on the board of the company that made the calcium-enhanced water that was being sold to the schools, and said nothing about that. The legislators I informed about this had no idea (or said they did) even though it was public record and easily acessible information. No one ever questioned the bill's sponsor about his vested financial interest in the bill either in committee or on the floor of either chamber. The bill passed.

Another example, the We Hate Teh Gays so We're Making It Unconstitutional To Marry Them measure that passed in Ohio - it was so badly worded that savvy lawyers are using it to prohibit the appliation of domestic battery laws in instances of unmarried couples. That certainly was unintended, and I can guarantee you advocacy groups and perhaps the legislative services lawyers who drafted the bill at the behest of the legislature probably warned that the wording was ambiguous and could lead to this result, but in their zeal to punish Teh Gays and protect us from them, they pushed it through anyway.

Sometimes I think Alexander Hamilton was right - people at large are too stupid to be allowed the right to vote. (and then I realize how much of a snob he was, and cringe at the thought I'm like him, and change my mind)

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Another example, the We Hate Teh Gays so We're Making It Unconstitutional To Marry Them measure that passed in Ohio - it was so badly worded that savvy lawyers are using it to prohibit the appliation of domestic battery laws in instances of unmarried couples. That certainly was unintended, and I can guarantee you advocacy groups and perhaps the legislative services lawyers who drafted the bill at the behest of the legislature probably warned that the wording was ambiguous and could lead to this result, but in their zeal to punish Teh Gays and protect us from them, they pushed it through anyway.

It was worse than that.

I recall (from sunny Calif.) that bill, and the people in Ohio (in the OpEd pages) telling them it allowed for that very thing.

They did it anyway.

TK

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

There are still an astonishing number of people out there who think it's really not such a bad thing to treat someone you love in a fashion that would get you arrested if you did it to a stranger.

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

On a more cheerful note, Monica Bellucci was willing to pose nude in support of the right of unmarried Italian women, to have access to in vitro fertilization. Maybe she'd be willing to repeat for the women of Indiana. If nothing else, these people could froth themselves into exhaustion in indignation over that, and have less energy for their legislative agenda.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

It would be far more cheerful if I'd seen said pose.

TK

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

It would appear to have been the Italian version of Vanity Fair. Google might give you more.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

0 (10) A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents,
11 include a description of individual participation in faith-based or
12 church activities, hobbies, and other interests.

Gee, waddaya bet Godless heathens need not apply?

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

My daddy told me never to bet on a sure thing.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Funny, mine told me to only bet on sure things.

TK

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

He hated gambling, and was afraid betting on sure things would lead to betting on less sure things. I think this arose from an episode in the 1930s where he won 25 cents in a crap game, while missing the drawing for a door prize at a local movie theater, where his name was called for the $50 grand prize.
He wasn't all that big on going to the movies after that, either.

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

The state gets to decide if you are moral enough to have kids, just because you aren't fertile enough to do it without help.

This part strikes me as an extension of the very Victorian attitude the Republican party has had toward the poor for so long. If you're poor, there must be something morally wrong with you; if there weren't something morally wrong with you, you wouldn't be poor. Likewise, if you were moral enough, you wouldn't need external help to conceive; the fact that you need help to conceive means that you're not moral enough to have children without extreme scrutiny.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_caecus_/]

I have only one comment: "Crack Kills"

That is all.

[ourika.livejournal.com]

You probably already know this, but it's been dropped.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051005/NEWS01/51005006