Indiana U-Turn
What are we to make of this? On 4 October we got news from Indiana that State Representative Patricia Miller proposed to save un-made babies from un-fit parents:
INDIANAPOLIS — An Indiana legislative committee is considering a bill that would prohibit gays, lesbians and single people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child.
Republican state Sen. Patricia Miller said state law should have requirements for assisted reproduction similar to those for adoption. She acknowledged that the legislation would be controversial.
It would require "intended parents" to be married to each other and says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.
["Plan Would Limit Reproduction Options For Gays, Singles", TheIndyChannel.com, 4 October 2005.]
Then, about 24 hours later, on 5 October, comes this news:
INDIANAPOLIS — A proposed bill that would prohibit gays, lesbians and single people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child has been dropped by its legislative sponsor.
State Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, issued a one-sentence statement Wednesday about her decision to drop the proposal.
"The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission," she said.
["Bill To Limit Reproduction Options For Gays, Singles Dropped", TheIndyChannel.com, 5 October 2005.]
I can't decide which is more scary: that an elected representative would even think to introduce such legislation, or that she'd then just try to erase it altogether a day later. She gives such a believable explanation, too! It makes one wonder what forces were at work that managed to quench so quickly a proposal that many reactionaries would welcome, and what it is they're trying to hide by doing so.
Here are a few more details (from the second listed piece) from her proposed legislation:
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.
In either case, I don't mention it for the sensationalism, nor really because it's yet another attempt to try to withdraw civil liberties from gays and lesbians.
I decided I wanted to keep a record of it here before a few more days passed and it just seemed like we had imagined it. I don't think that this Indiana State Senator should be allowed a free ride, nor be allowed to pretend that she never did anything quite so unthinking, stupid, and hateful in her role of public trust, nor should her constituents too easily forget either, especially the ones who approved of her actions.
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Monday, 10 October 2005 at 00.38
Permalink
What a display of gross ignorance and prejudice run amok. The woman doesn't need a state legislative seat, she needs a state hospital room and years of therapy.
I suspect someone whose understanding of the law exceeds that of the average garden slug informed Miller of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the extremely unlikely event that an entire legislature would be dumb enough to pass such a law, all it would take would be to wave it in front of a judge — any judge — and it would be gone, right there.
on Monday, 10 October 2005 at 13.08
Permalink
This bitch will be back, with her steaming pile of shit legislation in tow. Keep your eyes peeled; come January, it will be reintroduced, and we'll need to scream again.