These 2 stories are not even slightly related, other than they both make my head hurt…


Someone explain this to me: how either forming a group or collecting a dead man's sperm is a great idea.

Gonna try to unravel this mess below the fold… 


This first one is about a group in Virginia called “Protect Isabella Coalition”. Here’s the background story and it’s a pretty sad one:

A group of concerned Virginia citizens have formed the Protect Isabella Coalition in response to a custody battle between lesbian parents over their six-year-old daughter Isabella.

Birth mother Lisa Miller who now lives in Virginia is fighting for sole custody of their daughter from her former partner Janet Jenkins in Vermont. The couple was joined by civil union in 2001 but split a few years later when Jenkins decided she was no longer a lesbian and moved back to Virginia. Isabella was just 17 months old.

So what is the “Coalition’s” view of the matter?

Six-year-old Isabella Miller did not arrive in the world in “the usual way.” Her “dad” is an anonymous sperm donor.

The only father she really has known is her Heavenly Father, thanks to the love and godly teaching of her real (biological) mother and role model, Lisa Miller.

Though Lisa was residing in Virginia at the time of Isabella’s conception and birth, she was not considered “married” under Virginia’s constitution. She had a partner, of course — another woman, Janet Jenkins.

The two women cohabited in a lesbian relationship for a while before deciding to make it a contractual faux marriage under Vermont’s civil union law, passed in 2000. It was into this civil union that Isabella was conceived and born. The two women later moved to Vermont for a time.

Vermont’s citizens were not overwhelmingly in favor of homosexual civil unions. Many raised quite a stink about it, in fact. But, as we have seen in the other states that have followed suit — two of them, Massachusetts and California, adding the term “marriage” to their legislatively or judicially mandated versions of gay unions — the will of the people is continually overridden by activists who are hijacking, one by one, state houses and state supreme courts.

Outrageous, you say? You bet it is. But a growing wave of liberal, pro-gay ideology is sweeping the country. Will Virginia be the next state on the radar of radical gay activists? May it never be for the Old Dominion!

Yet, even with DOMA (the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed on former President Bill Clinton’s watch), a strong marriage protection amendment and the Marriage Affirmation Act, Virginia has been unable to prevent little Isabella Miller from being forced against her will into liberal visitations with an active lesbian, Janet Jenkins, the former partner of Lisa Miller.

Lisa renounced her foray into the lesbian lifestyle and became a committed Christian. A Virginia Judge, while awarding her full custody of Isabella in 2004, also declared that Janet Jenkins was not a parent to this child.

Lisa Miller did what any loving mother would do. Even the briefest vision of what Isabella could be exposed to with Janet and other live-in lesbian lovers was all she needed to contemplate. Her Christian faith simply would not permit her to send this innocent lamb into what she viewed as a wolves’ den.

What has been most disturbing throughout this years-long court battle is the apparent lack of concern for Isabella’s welfare or representation of her best interests.

Previously, little had been done in the child’s behalf. That testimony carried little weight with a judge who, until the final 10 minutes of the proceedings, gave every indication that he would callously strip custody of Isabella from the only mother she has known — a Christian, who has a legion of witnesses to affirm her character — and give it to an unrelated lesbian whose character has been impugned by her own statements.

Ugh-ugh-UGH. Divorce is usually horribly ugly, especially for kids- but that this family is being chewed up in such a manner is horrible. I feel bad for the girl; she’s in an utter no-win.

Second up is just the most mind-boggling story I’ve seen in quite awhile. Instead of “Think of the Children!” (TM), we have a new twist.

“Think of the GRANDCHILDREN!”

Here’s the story:

The mother of a 21-year-old assault victim who died of his injuries received permission Tuesday for his sperm to be collected post-mortem, giving her the chance to have a grandchild through a surrogate mother.

Travis County Probate Judge Guy Herman ordered the medical examiner’s office to maintain the body of Nikolas Colton Evans until his sperm can be taken.

Herman issued the orders after an emergency hearing at the request of Marissa Evans, whose son died Sunday after being punched and falling during a March 27 assault on East Sixth Street.

“I want him to live on,” Evans said. “I want to keep a piece of him.”

She said that her son had frequently talked about his desire to have three sons and had chosen their names: Hunter, Tod and Van.

University of Texas law professor John Robertson, who specializes in bioethics, said that state law gives parents control over a child’s body for donation of organs and tissues but that “this use is very unclear.”

“There are no strong precedents in favor of a parent being able to request post-mortem sperm retrieval,” he said.

“I can understand her situation,” Mueller said. “She has just lost her son, and she knew her son wanted to have children.”

Evans, who also has a 22-year-old son, described Nikolas Evans as a quick-witted aspiring filmmaker who recently had been accepted into film school at the University of California at Los Angeles.

WOW. Where to start… How about with some ethical and legal opinions?

Decisions such as Evans’ must be made quickly, and allow little time for a grieving person to reflect on the choice, one ethicist said.

Using the sperm brings up more issues.

“That child’s biological father will be dead. The mother may be an egg donor, anonymous or gestational surrogate,” said Tom Mayo, director of Southern Methodist University’s Maguire Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility.

“This is a tough way for a kid to come into the world. As the details emerge and the child learns more about their origins, I just wonder what the impact will be on a replacement child,” Mayo said.

He said the desire to replace a deceased child is a classic scenario that, in this case, took a nontraditional turn.

“The underlying desire would be very strong, even if she wouldn’t describe it that way,” he said.

Art Caplan, chair of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said that in the past decade there have probably been about 1,000 such requests by spouses, mothers, girlfriends and others in the U.S. – but most “don’t wind up using it.”

Caplan said hospitals may have protocols for dealing with such requests, but there are few laws or regulations regarding the practice. It’s usually up to a urologist to decide whether to perform the procedure, he said.

It would be rare for a child to be born from sperm retrieved from a dead person, said Melissa Brisman, an attorney on the American Fertility Association’s legal advisory council.

“This is an unexpected death in which there are tons of emotions and you don’t even know if you want to do it,” she said.

Mark Vopat, a professor of philosophy and religious studies at Youngstown State University in Ohio, questions whether the court should have granted the mother’s request. He said that while Nikolas Evans may have told his mother he wanted children someday, it’s wrong to assume he also would have wanted to father a child posthumously if he died prematurely.

“This is a disturbing sort of case,” he said.

No kidding. Makes me wonder how her other son feels about all of this.

Let’s say for a minute that Ma Gramma gets her way and somehow finds a surrogate, presumably at the “Build-A-Baby” store.. What is she going to do if all the wigglers produce DAUGHTERS?

This is just too effed up for me…  




Leave a reply