Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Under the category "none of your business"
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, October 06, 2005

Seems an Indiana legislator has come to her senses and dropped a bill which would have barred gays, lesbians and single people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child.

She, of course, was a Republican. This is what I mean when I say Republicans want to be your daddy. For some unknown reason they seem to want to tell you who you can sleep with, what is sexually acceptable and who can or can't have babies.

That's opposed to the mommy party (the Dems) who don't think you competent enough to handle your retirement, health care, education or a myriad of other things they continue to try to federalize.

But back to the Indiana pol, State Sen. Patricia Miller.
The bill defined assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.

It then required "intended parents" to be married to each other and says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

A doctor could not begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child being born until the intended parents have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill. The assessment is similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana.

The required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans and criminal history checks. Description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents also is required, including participation in faith-based or church activities.
Amazing she'd even contemplate such an assinine bill.

None of your business, Ms. Miller. None. Of. Your. Business.

And it is especially none of the state's business.

As you might suspect, libertarians already believe one set of parents is enough, and the majority of the libertarian fight is against the set of pseudo-parents in the guise of government (and characterized by Ms. Miller and Rahm Emanuel).

If we can ever, ever get across the point to our legislators that they should stay out of our lives (sex and otherwise) and out of our wallets, we might see a return to the enlightened government we once had (that would be between the time the Consitution became the law of the land and the first Congress met to begin passing laws).
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I’m going to go out on a limb here and defend (weakly) the intended legislation. Allowing artifical insemination for only married couples makes sense to me from the standpoint that children of single parents are significantly more likely to end up on the state welfare roles in one form or another. Requiring putative parents to meet some minimum level of standards prior to insemination would undoubtedly lower future costs to teh state from crime and welfare.

That being said, the libertarian bones in my body agree with you, Bruce. It should not be the state’s perogative to dictate who gets pregnant or not. The real problem IMO is that the state already has such a vested interest in children born into high-risk homes, that this sort of law suggests itself when the state seemly has the power to prevent further rises in that statistic. Said another way, why would the state help put bullets in the gun of the very people holding them up?

Of course, there is the more invidious reason of preventing gay couples from using artificial insemination, but the way the law is described it does not seem to be so narrowly tailored.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Allowing artifical insemination for only married couples makes sense to me from the standpoint that children of single parents are significantly more likely to end up on the state welfare roles in one form or another.
I would assume that someone who could afford to pay the high costs of artificial insemination will not be on welfare, and neither will their children.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
That’s a good point JWG.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Like I wrote, I am weakly defending the law ;)
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Sorry, JWG, but I suspect most of these high priced procedures have bean paid for by insurance companys that have been sued out of any limitation on what they will pay for. What they do in the privacy of their own bank account is their own business. Remember, California just yesterday passed a law prohibiting state paid Viagra to jailed sex offenders.
 
Written By: Walter E. Wallis
URL: http://
To Walter Wallis’ comments, I would add that if private insurers are covering insemination procedures, it will only be a matter of time before insemination becomes a "right" that Medicaid is obligated to cover. Then JWG’s argument about the cost of the procedure will be moot, because any welfare recipient eligible for state-paid medical would have state-sponsored fertility treatments as well.

Of course, if we could get government’s sticky little fingers out of medical coverage in the first place... oh wait, there’s my alarm clock... time to wake up.
 
Written By: Wacky Hermit
URL: http://organicbabyfarm.blogspot.com
I don’t know if NeoLibs have any reverance for the Founding Fathers, but from what I understand, I think they would totally in favor of the law. Laws throughout the States at the time (and many still do) prohibited many forms of licentiousness. They understood that when the moral character of its citizens break down (including whether a person has sex with sheep) so goes civilization. Thus, rules and laws, I believe certainly appropriate, were enacted to keep the fringe elements of society from causing the rest of us to waiver.

The natural man is an enemy to God and to himself. That’s why we have laws.

I would appreciate any comments/criticism on this thread. I’m not the most eloquent thinker and writer, but I hope you get the gist of what I am saying.
 
Written By: Nuclear
URL: http://
Of course the Founding Fathers would’ve supported it, the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the states back then. 14th Amendment changed that:
"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
b-psycho,

The DP and EP clauses do not automatically say that such laws are unconstitutional. The SC in Bowers in 1985 said that Georgia’s sodomy law was constitutional and did not violate EP nor DP. Of course, the Texas decision reversed Bowers and said sodomy is a fundamental right.
 
Written By: Nuclear
URL: http://
The sodomy law referred to in Lawrence v. Texas was selectively enforced and only applied to homosexuals, how is that equal protection? The Bowers ruling was correct, but only because it applied to both gay and straight sodomy.

As for the "fundamental right" remark: stating that the government cannot justifiably prosecute gays for doing what straight people can do legally is not to in any way raise sodomy to an equal status as freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. It is not an endorsement of homosexuality any more than the Raich v. Gonzales ruling would’ve been an endorsement of marijuana use had it turned out the other direction, legality does not directly correspond to acceptance.
 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
b-psycho,

EP was only argued by O’Connor - in both decisions. EP says you treat the same people the same. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are different. Others would argue otherwise and that’s what O’Connor did.

The majority in Lawrence rested their argument on the notion that sodomy is a fundamental right. Once something is a fundmanental right, you must meet strict scrutiny. Same goes for freedom of speech, or right to bear arms. So sodomy is on an equal status as those fundamental rights. I’m afraid to break it to you, but legality does correspond to acceptance.
 
Written By: Nuclear
URL: http://
EP was only argued by O’Connor - in both decisions. EP says you treat the same people the same. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are different. Others would argue otherwise and that’s what O’Connor did.
I know that’s how O’Connor saw it. Personally I think she was right on that.

You say gays and straights are different, and in a way they are: different sexual preference. Yet doesn’t this just lead to the question of how different is "different enough" to matter in the yes of the law? You are free to your own opinion on that, I simply see no relevant arguement for the distinguishing mark of whether an act is a crime or not as being "are they gay?"...

The majority in Lawrence rested their argument on the notion that sodomy is a fundamental right. Once something is a fundmanental right, you must meet strict scrutiny. Same goes for freedom of speech, or right to bear arms. So sodomy is on an equal status as those fundamental rights.
That’s them, obviously I disagree with that view since it assumes no difference between homosexual buggery & protesting as concerns the Constitution. There’s a difference, just not one that specifically says "ban one and allow the other". I know at the time the founders wouldn’t have approved of legal sodomy, but the source of most "moral" law at the time was the states, not federal level, so they saw no reason to address it. Holding to principle can lead to a different conclusion on the same matter later on if everything else around it changes.
I’m afraid to break it to you, but legality does correspond to acceptance.
Then by your logic, anything that someone doesn’t accept they would be completely justified in pushing to pass a law against it, no matter how trivial. Anything short of a ban would be construed as an endorsement—smoking being legal is an endorsement of it, drinking being legal is encouragement of people becoming alcoholics, pornography being legal is an endorsement, etc...

Surely you see where this would lead. Everyone has something that bothers them though it doesn’t infringe on them, considering that as grounds for law is a VERY dangerous road...
 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
I know that’s how O’Connor saw it. Personally I think she was right on that.
Doesn’t matter what you personally think, right? It’s what the majority on the Court thinks.
You say gays and straights are different, and in a way they are: different sexual preference. Yet doesn’t this just lead to the question of how different is "different enough" to matter in the yes of the law? You are free to your own opinion on that
There are tons of statistics that show how homosexuals are different than heterosexuals. It is HUGE. But we are PCed into thinking that we can’t discuss those b/c we will offend homosexuals.

I know at the time the founders wouldn’t have approved of legal sodomy, but the source of most "moral" law at the time was the states, not federal level, so they saw no reason to address it. Holding to principle can lead to a different conclusion on the same matter later on if everything else around it changes.
The source of moral law still SHOULD be the states, not the federal goverment, as the Founders intended. The principle still applies even though society has changed.
Then by your logic, anything that someone doesn’t accept they would be completely justified in pushing to pass a law against it, no matter how trivial. Anything short of a ban would be construed as an endorsement—smoking being legal is an endorsement of it, drinking being legal is encouragement of people becoming alcoholics, pornography being legal is an endorsement
I used the word acceptance, not endorsement. There’s a big difference.

People not only have a big stake in themselves but also in society. If society fails do to lack of a social order, then so much for individual automony. Individial rights isn’t some willy nilly I can do whatever I want anytime of the day. The Founders knew that and allowed the states to make laws prescribing an ordered society. There is always the slippery slope argument that can be used on either side and is not convincing to me anymore. Everything is a slippery slope. That is why we have elected representatives to hash it out in a democratic process that is based on fallible humans. We have progressed a lot in 229 years since independence but course correction are necessary when we over steer too much toward willy nilly sexual freedom (which is a misnomer BTW).
 
Written By: Nuclear
URL: http://
Doesn’t matter what you personally think, right? It’s what the majority on the Court thinks.
Of course. I pointed out how I felt because your response sounded like you expected me to back off because I agreed with O’Connor. She could’ve been more consistent on the bench, true, but it’s clear we have somewhat different views of what that consistency would look like.
There are tons of statistics that show how homosexuals are different than heterosexuals. It is HUGE. But we are PCed into thinking that we can’t discuss those b/c we will offend homosexuals.
You misinterpret what I said. Sure they can be discussed, go right ahead, I personally find what they do to be sick. However, if it is between consenting adults, it does not in any way violate the rights of other people, thus there is no reason for government involvement. No one has a "right" to not be offended, neither them by our disapproval nor you by being denied the use of force (that’s what the law is at root, the threat of force) against acts that do not harm you.
The source of moral law still SHOULD be the states, not the federal goverment, as the Founders intended. The principle still applies even though society has changed.
The change I was referring to was the 14th Amendment. Moral law can be passed on the state & local level according to the Constitution, just not to the extent it was at first, specific groups cannot be singled out for harsher treatment.
I used the word acceptance, not endorsement. There’s a big difference.
What would be the difference by your definition? Not having a law against sodomy says nothing other than "sodomy is not a crime", you apparently read it as "sodomy is good". Do you seriously believe that the only way one can say otherwise is through government?
People not only have a big stake in themselves but also in society. If society fails do to lack of a social order, then so much for individual automony.
People can’t have a stake in society without calling for government intervention? You can’t oppose something yet believe it should remain legal?
Individial rights isn’t some willy nilly I can do whatever I want anytime of the day. The Founders knew that and allowed the states to make laws prescribing an ordered society. There is always the slippery slope argument that can be used on either side and is not convincing to me anymore. Everything is a slippery slope. That is why we have elected representatives to hash it out in a democratic process that is based on fallible humans.
If the point is the inherently flawed nature of humans, then how does considering elections as grants of power to legislate morality not assume perfection of politicians?

We’re all human, whether holding political office or otherwise. That’s why there are things they are simply not allowed to do, because they are no better than us.
 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider