I wish I didn't believe it.

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.

Bill O'Reilly, dumber than I thought

Pop quiz: WW2, a small field in Belgium, during the Battle of Bulge was the site of a massacre, who committed it, and why?

Answer, Soldiers of the 1st SS, under Jochaim Pieper.

The massacre at Malmédy took place because the Pieper, a veteran of the Eastern Front, wanted to instill terror on the Americans. He is said to have thought the prospect of being killed if they surrendered would make them more likely to rout, and so ease the advance.

There's a lot of controversy, to this day, about the details. There are 84 official dead, though 86 bodies were recovered. A couple of Belgians saw it, and three Americans survived. What is known is a lot of the dead had been shot in the head, or recieved blunt force injuries, consistent with rifle butts.

Of the 5,000 troops Pieper had when the battle began, only 800 survived to the end of the war. Almost ten percent of them were indicted for war crimes after the war was over.

But, for Bill O'Reilly, speaking to Wesly Clark, that's not what happened at all. See the Malmédy massacre is one of the reasons we have to suppress the information about Abu Ghraib. Clark said the Army he served in didn't condone abuses of prisoners. O'Reilly asked Clark if he knew what war was about (which is a bit of a stretch for good ol' Bill, who might want to stick to subjects he does know about, like loofahs, but I digress). He then went on to list atrocities from the past; as justification for the acts of the present, "General! you need to look at the Malmédy Massacre in World War Two and the 82nd Airborne who committed it."


I don't think I can add anything to that.