Indiana legislator pulls womb control bill
“The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission.”— Indiana State Sen. Patricia Miller (R-Indianapolis), coming to her senses
Did she just come out from under a cultural rock? This gal had no clue the poorly conceived (pun intended) legislation to control procreation outside of the fertile, married, male-female, faith-based experience was a flaming pile of sh*t? Looks like a little fire was lit under the ass of this Hoosier, so she pulled it.
A controversial proposed bill to prohibit gays, lesbians and single people from using medical procedures to become pregnant has been dropped by its legislative sponsor.
…Miller had asked that committee — a panel of lawmakers who meet when the Indiana General Assembly is not in session to discuss possible legislation — to recommend the bill to the full legislature when it meets in January.
Under her proposal, couples who need assistance to become pregnant — such as through intrauterine insemination; the use of donor eggs, embryos and sperm; in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer or other medical means — would have to be married to each other. In addition, married couples who needed donor sperm and eggs to become pregnant would be required to go through the same rigorous assessment process of their fitness to be parents as do people who adopt a child.
My earlier post: Hoosier legislators want to quash lesbian pregnancies
And in related news, perhaps this idiot’s theory is what the Indiana boobs looked to for inspiration for the legislation.
‘Sexless’ Pregnancy’s Threat to Families
Author and Stanford University research fellow Jennifer Roback Morse is pointing out a trend she finds very disturbing — the increasing incidence of “instant” or “sexless” pregnancies.
A recent article in the London Telegraph newspaper highlighted this rising trend among career-driven women in England who want to have children. Despite being perfectly healthy, many of these women either do not have the time or the inclination to start a relationship in order to create children naturally. So, instead, these career-focused women are turning in increasing numbers to in-vitro fertilization.
Morse, author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long Love in a Hook-Up World (Spence Publishing, 2005), contends that such “sexless pregnancies” only serve to further society’s disconnect between having sex and the act of procreation. In effect, she says, something that should be an act of pure love is being replaced with technology.
“And many people who are using this technology to create a baby without sex are doing so precisely because they are afraid of having the relationship with the opposite-sex person that, for whatever reason, don’t want to deal with,” Morse asserts. “They think it’s easier to have a baby basically by themselves, without having that relationship with the other person.”
Those touting the “sexless pregnancy” option are trying to turn the right of a married couple into an individual right “so that a woman can have a baby on her own terms — with or without getting involved with a man,” the researcher says. “And this, I think, is deeply, deeply wrong from the point of view of the child,” she adds, “because often what these technologies turn out to do is to create a situation where the mother has planned in advance that her child will never have a relationship with his or her father.”