« From the desk of Mrs. Cranky | Main | When you write about Boston, and you will, be kind. »
10/05/2005
Holy smoking monkeys, what the hell is this?
In Muncie, you may not carry fishing tackle in a cemetery.
In Gary, you may not enter a movie house or a theater within four hours of eating garlic.
In Warsaw, you may not throw an old computer across the street at your neighbor.
If you happen to be a monkey in South Bend, you are forbidden by law to smoke a cigarette.
And if Indiana State Senator Patricia Miller gets her way, if you have the misfortune to be infertile in Indiana, you'll soon be well and truly screwed.
Miller, seen here in her official photo, proposes to regulate assisted reproduction in Indiana. The bill she's drafted (PDF) requires ART patients — "intended parents" — who are availing themselves of donor gametes or the offices of a surrogate to undergo a thorough screening to evaluate their fitness to be parents.
That's right: before you attempted IUI or IVF with third-party involvement, you'd have to petition the state for approval, just as adoptive parents must — "Before intended parents may commence assisted reproduction, the intended parents shall obtain an assessment from a licensed child placing agency [...]. The assessment must follow the normal practice for assessments in a domestic infant adoption."
And single people, according to the draft, need not apply — "an unmarried person may not be an intended parent." This obviously excludes gays and lesbians as well.
The information you (and by that I mean "the straight and married you") would be required to furnish would include, but would not be limited to:
- Personal information about your values;
- A physical description;
- Statement of income;
- A "verification and evaluation of the intended parents' marital relationship";
- A description of the "family lifestyle" of the intended parents, including a description of individual participation in faith-based or church activities;
- A letter of reference by a friend or family member; and
- A statement of "the intended parents' purpose for the assisted reproduction."
(I am assuming "For the sweet, sweet high of fentanyl" is not an acceptable answer to that last.)
It gets worse. According to the draft, "intended parents" may not compensate donors, nor may you work with a surrogate who has no prior pregnancy history.
Scared yet? I am.
I don't live in Indiana because my monkey gets a little wiggy if he doesn't get his Camels, but I'm not above haranguing the elected representatives of those who do. Won't you join me?
It's important.
A tip of the retroverted uterus to Akeeyu, Paty, Kathy, Susan, and intelligent others commenting on this issue.
Update: Miller's proposed bill has been withdrawn — apparently the issue is "more complex than anticipated."
Must have been all those old computers people were throwing across the street at her. Hey, Patricia: the UNIVAC was from me.
Posted by Julie at 10:37 AM in I've learned a lot...but I'm not sure it's worth it. | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518e0569e200d8345aa50069e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Holy smoking monkeys, what the hell is this?:
» Baby Trouble from lifestylefilter
Baby Trouble [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 6, 2005 1:30:21 AM
» Another Stupid Legislation Alert from Exile from Babyville
From Alas, A Blog the author has posted about yet another piece of stupid legislation attempting to limit access to ART procedures like IUI and IVF. Oh, and Julie from a Little Pregnant is on this story as well. This [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 6, 2005 10:19:29 AM
» Like smaller government? Try uterus-sized! from Redneck Mother
I've seen this discussed just about everywhere yesterday and today: A state legislator in Indiana has filed the latest power grab by the crotch nazis. A Little Pregnant has more: [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 6, 2005 11:35:31 AM
» So if it's not about controlling sexuality... from Grand Mental Station
Cecily:And I'll leave you with this (via Feministing). I'm sure you've heard by now that the new Cervical Cancer Vaccine has been reported to be 100% successful. ONE HUNDRED FUCKING PERCENT. Cool, right? But guess what? The religious right wants [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 8, 2005 12:24:46 PM
Comments (111)
Oh My GOD! This is so unbelievable!! It makes me think that my partner and I should hurry up and get pregnant before the government thinks of any more stupid laws to prevent us from pursuing our happiness. This is just one more way that the right wing government is marginalizing gay and lesbian couples. We can't get married in this country, but I thought we could at least have a family!!
Thank you for bringing this issue to people's attention.
Posted by: Sara at Oct 5, 2005 10:49:46 AM
Delayed happy dance for being comment #1!!!
Posted by: Sara at Oct 5, 2005 10:51:27 AM
Holy crap! Thank goodness I moved away from that godforsaken state after attending college there. So here's what I want to know -- why doesn't this bill require ALL "intended parents" (including those who don't need ART) to run the same gauntlet? I mean, if Big Brother's going to decide who deserves to reproduce, he needs to be consistent and thorough about it.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...........
Posted by: Tine at Oct 5, 2005 10:55:43 AM
Thank the gods I live in Massachusetts. Eek. Its my eggs, hubbies sperm, and my retroverted uterus, and it certainly not the government's business if they don't seem to be working properly.
Posted by: Elizabeth at Oct 5, 2005 11:00:23 AM
You. Have got. To be kidding me.
How about if we just get it over with already and do this one instead: Mandatory birth control starting at age 12 and continuing until you can pass a parenting test. Then you may attempt to reproduce. Think about it: no more teen moms or unwanted pregnancies! It's a win-win-win!!!
Posted by: Foster at Oct 5, 2005 11:04:44 AM
I agree with Tine that if the government wants to evaluate potential parents, then all potential parents should be evaluated. My question would be if they manage to pass this, then what is next. These are personal decisions that the government should stay out of.
Posted by: Inga at Oct 5, 2005 11:09:56 AM
I wish everyone would use their brains when bringing kids into the world so the government would stop feeling like it has to butt into our life decisions. But utopia certainly isn't close from where I'm sitting (Damn!). I do continue to be amazed at the things the government controls in all countries: China-number of kids Turkey-expression of religion in any form Yeah, it's sucks that our government is so nosy, but at least we were born/immigrated to a land where government spies don't follow you and (for the most part) you can do whatever the hell you want. That every country were as lucky as we were. I'm not saying our country couldn't improve...I'm saying in the grand scheme of things we could be worse off.
Posted by: Sara at Oct 5, 2005 11:18:21 AM
gee the government wants to interfer in seemingly private reproductive health issues. I wonder what the Supreme Court would say about that?
ACK! I just scared myself. Following links and kicking into fight mode yet again.
and Foster,we can't give kids birth control, because that would lead to their having S E X.
Posted by: elisabeth at Oct 5, 2005 11:20:28 AM
I am beyond appalled. I live in Indiana, and I swear not everyone here is this backwards. I'll write to every one of the State Senators on Miller's committee.
But just to try to clear one thing up - this article:
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/12813691.htm
says that the bill doesn't apply to situations when the egg comes from the intended mother and the sperm from the intended father. So for example, my dh and I did IUIs with his sperm, and therefore would not have had to go through the approval process before persuing treatment. The approval process only seems to come into play when donor egg or sperm or a gestational carrier are involved. I've read the bill and it seems to say the same thing, though I am no lawyer. If someone more clever than I reads the bill and gets a different interpretation please post - I'd like to have my facts straight before I write.
Either way it's obviously a gross violation of privacy, blatantly anti-gay, and just all kinds of wrong. Thanks for bringing everyone's attention to this, Julie.
-cln
Posted by: cln at Oct 5, 2005 11:22:21 AM
The bill is screwed up, but you have it wrong. They provide exemption for married couples undergoing ART, including if they are using a gestational surrogate.
It's really taking its stab at gay and single straights who want to become parents with any level of medical assistance. They don't care whether or not these people are infertile, they just want a way to make sure that kids get born into married families of a mother and a father.
It's a stupid bill and hopefully it will get shot down for the fact that it chews up and spits out the US Constitution and that will be the end of that.
Posted by: Celeste at Oct 5, 2005 11:23:18 AM
Ye gods! Here's what I wrote (with great restraint in terms of length, vitriol, etc.) to Senator Miller via her contact page at http://www.in.gov/cgi-bin/legislative/contact/contact.pl?data=Senate|Miller,Patricia%20L.|s32|sr
Dear Senator Miller,
I recently learned about a bill you have drafted to regulate assisted reproduction. I have read the bill, and it is a horrendous violation of the right to privacy. What gives the state government the right to regulate people's values?! Or why they want to have children?! Please try to focus on real issues, instead of making life that much harder for people already sacrificing so much to build families, and trying to turn Indiana into a fascist reproductive dictatorship along the way. I sincerely hope your bill dies an early death.
Posted by: colette at Oct 5, 2005 11:24:32 AM
I grew up in Indiana. I am ashamed. And wondering if I would pass to be honest!
Posted by: Kelly at Oct 5, 2005 11:27:46 AM
What the ever-loving hell?! It almost makes me want to marry a woman and undergo ART just on the principle of it!
Posted by: ASM at Oct 5, 2005 11:30:21 AM
I went to that link to help and I didn't see anything specific...
Posted by: Heather at Oct 5, 2005 11:35:40 AM
makes me proud to be a Canadian.... scary stuff that.
Posted by: lindsay at Oct 5, 2005 11:44:31 AM
Wow. Lucky for all those on the religious right that this law wasn't around in Mary and Joseph's time. Wouldn't want the virgin mother being convicted of "unauthorized reproduction" for getting knocked up by a means other than sex with her husband.
I read the text and it does appear that this is meant to apply to gay and lesbian couples and straight couples using donor gametes and or gestational surrogates. Not that that makes it any less scary. Actually it probably makes it more scary because I think it makes it more likely to pass. Yikes.
Posted by: Amy E at Oct 5, 2005 11:53:53 AM
Haven't followed all of the links yet but am really not liking what you've had to say thus far.
I am an Indiana native, though I don't currently live there. Still, my entire family does. I was married there. I intend to move back there at some point (sooner than later). If we decide to have a second child through gestational surrogacy, she will be an Indiana girl.
I will definitely be looking into this further.
Posted by: Miss W at Oct 5, 2005 11:54:44 AM
Total crap.
When are people going to see that our rights are being shaved away, bit by bit, by Republican "Moralists" who are only interested in their own agendas: a white, straight, Christian, patriarchal society. I guess this is what happens when we live in a country full of people who's only criteria for choosing a president is "who they would like to invite to a backyard bbq". Wake up, America. "YEE HAW" IS NOT A NATIONAL POLICY.
Posted by: Jen/Chew at Oct 5, 2005 12:04:51 PM
I don't live in Indiana, but as a person with fertitlity issues, I resent being dragged into these legislators' attempt to trample on the rights of gay and single people.
And I was already in a foul mood this morning. Shit.
Posted by: pixi at Oct 5, 2005 12:07:29 PM
Not that this improves the situation, but it appears to apply only to people using donor gametes or surrogacy:
The bill does not apply to assisted reproduction in which the child is the genetic child of both of the intended parents, for example, the sperm is from the father and the egg is from the mother. But married couples that need one or the other would still have to go through an assessment process and establish parentage in a court.
(from http://www.southernvoice.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=2752)
Posted by: sara at Oct 5, 2005 12:08:09 PM
Y'all are right; in my quick scan of the text of the bill, I jumped the gun. It does look like it's only intended to apply to donor and surrogate situations. Amending my post accordingly. Thanks.
Posted by: Julie at Oct 5, 2005 12:08:13 PM
I'm sorry but that still SUCKS!!!! It's even more unfair that way, if you ask me--to gay people, single people, and couples that need someone else's genetic material or uterus.
Posted by: pixi at Oct 5, 2005 12:11:50 PM
When did the government have any business being involved in the bedrooms of its people?
I'm glad I live in Canada. People may not like that homosexuals can marry in this country, but the fact is, they can. Which then says to me that the government in this country has decided they have no right to say what goes on in the nation's bedrooms.
So sad.
Posted by: Scully at Oct 5, 2005 12:24:16 PM
Dear god. I live in Indiana as well, and sheesh.. though, I msut say, with all the other crap we have going on right now, this doesn't suprise me one bit. Sigh.
After the frustrated resignation that there are idiots running my state, I wonder... what if a lesbian doesn't use "donor sperm" assisted, but just finds a "donor" and has sex? Would that violate this legislature? I know of several lesbian couples that have either collected a donation and inseminated themselves or had actual intercourse for the purpose of a child.
When these women give birth, will there be a questionnaire at the hospital to see if they "followed the law"??? For that matter, what if an Indiana woman goes to another state for the procedure (which is getting quite common - the having to go to other states for things because INDIANA SUCKS regarding personal privacy) but has the child in an Indiana hospital. Did she violate the law as well?
I'm sadly getting to the point here I just shake my head in disbelief. (Then I go write lots of letters... not that it works (that's another nasty story about the Indiana legislature) but I try.)
Posted by: Peach at Oct 5, 2005 12:24:33 PM
And one more thing...can we talk about the fact that the same people who are trying to prevent people who really do want to parent children (and are willing to go to great lengths at great expense to do so) are the same ones who will do anything in their power to prevent those who don't want to parent children from having the right to end an unwanted pregnancy.
Posted by: Amy E at Oct 5, 2005 12:31:04 PM
It sucks.
Wanna know what sucks more? I live in her district. And yes, she is evil. Luckily, at least in Indy, this is getting some press. However, the press has been pretty "meh" about the whole thing. Sigh.
Posted by: Rachel at Oct 5, 2005 1:03:34 PM
Un-be-frucking-leev-a-bull. I'm speechless.
Posted by: JustLinda at Oct 5, 2005 1:05:24 PM
How timely.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3611666.stm
Posted by: Beth at Oct 5, 2005 1:08:53 PM
well, Lawdy...
I guess the black market baby business will be THRILLED to hear this!!
Posted by: Cat at Oct 5, 2005 1:09:14 PM
While I am heartily opposed to government intereference in reproductive issues, particularly interference that smacks of discrimination as this does, I can't help but think some rules need to be in place to prevent situations such as this
triplet surrogacy case gone sad.
The three boys are almost two years old, and lawsuits are flying in at least three states involving the egg donor (who didn't file for parental rights for many months), the spem donor (origional intended father), and the surrogate (who was awarded custody after the intended father and his fiancee failed to return to the hospital to pick up the babies a week after they were born). The lack of any type of clear legal direction is making this case next to impossible to address.
I don't proclaim to know what the answer is, but I can see why some would think having laws regulating such arrangments could be a good thing. (not that I in any way agree with the proposed legislation in Indiana) It's food for thought.
Posted by: Sarah at Oct 5, 2005 1:17:07 PM
"YEE HAW" IS NOT A NATIONAL POLICY.
That has got to be my quote of the day. Jen/Chew, you crack me up.
But yeah, it's an appalling bill and an appalling attitude of self-righteousness behind it. It's the same arrogant bullcrap spewed by fartheads who think they know better than the child's caretakers, parents and guardians what it is the right way to raise said child and feel entitled to judge and criticize parents, doctors and teachers on personal matters they know nothing about.
Posted by: Hissy Cat at Oct 5, 2005 1:20:29 PM
I've sent a link to this to the angriest feminist I know, who also works with a national organization whose mission is to protect reproductive rights, and suggested she circulate it to likeminded others who might have a word or two for Senator Miller.
Off to write my own words now.
Posted by: quantgirl at Oct 5, 2005 1:35:02 PM
Alright, you fill out the form with your background (understandable), present situation (rather invasive but comprehensible) and your um, intended future. So if things don't go the way you thought they would, is there a check-up period down the line where they'll take Jr away? Is it perjury if you say you "intend" to remain married and then don't? If they're taking things this far, let's just turn divorce into a federal offense, that'll be fun.
When are they going to impose an system of interrogation on families with scads of children they can't afford to take care of, or teen parents, or abusive drunk parents, or folks who have children just to save a relationship, or even better, just to have a fashion accesory? There are too many people who reproduce on a whim who should be subject to regulation to worry about the families (or singletons!) who have thought through each step of the process and are strong enough to face the outcome.
Sorry if anyone else already said any of that, I'm at work and sneaking a peek!
Posted by: Meg at Oct 5, 2005 1:36:27 PM
This kind of thing makes me sick and angry.
So if I'm "lucky" enough to be a psychotic crack whore on welfare residing in Indiana with a functioning reproductive system, I can obviously have a child without governmental interference. But if I'm an employed person with sufficient income to both support a child and pay for the exhorbitant costs of doing an IVF donor egg cycle, but have the misfortune to have a non-functioning reproductive system, I have to pass the state's test and jump through hoops making an already difficult and painful process more so.
I'm obviously not suggesting that it's either possible or sensible to require that all parents have to pass a governmental test to have a child (although when you read the stories about how some parents treat their children, you think maybe we should), just that it's incredibly unjust to penalize people just because they have reproductive issues that prevent them from having children the "conventional" way.
Thank G-d (A) I don't live in Indiana, and (B) I gave birth to our beautiful DE son this past January.
I have to believe that there are enough progressive, open minded and outraged citizens in Indiana to prevent this from happening.
I so worry about the state of our country these days.
Posted by: jzp at Oct 5, 2005 1:49:52 PM
I live in Chicago and can see Northern Indiana (i.e. the lovely smokestacks of Gary) from my window. Am now sending death ray stares over the border at Miller and her cohorts. This is discrimination, pure and simple.
Just love the religion question as well. What would be their response to applicants who said that they worship satan, or are simply atheists. Probably be rejected. I can see the red reject stamp on the app. now and the accompanying comment, "Certainly wouldn't want those kinds of people raising kids."
Posted by: Jess at Oct 5, 2005 1:53:39 PM
so exactly what "freedoms" are we interested in protecting in Iraq again? or with homeland security? anyone?
Posted by: beth at Oct 5, 2005 1:56:16 PM
WONDERFUL I live in Indiana. This woman is off her freaking rocker. To be honest this is the first I have heard about this bill. I have a very hard time seeing it pass.
Posted by: Jess at Oct 5, 2005 2:08:21 PM
I put in a call to Miller.
But not before I read Amy E's comment.
Making note to self, in letter to Miller, question her love for Baby Jesus and all of Christianity's constructs.
Posted by: Wavery at Oct 5, 2005 2:09:16 PM
Well, we posted about this same thing at about the same exact time, but I just posted a story about it, not my feelings, which might be far too jumbled to even express. All day I've felt like I might cry. Even though we're not in Indiana and I would hope that such legislation would never pass, it's so close to home.
Tomorrow my partner starts shots, twice daily, of good ole Gonal-F and Repronex. I'll put an estrogen patch on my back and take an Estrodiol pill thrice daily. Hopefully in about ten days, the doctor will harvest many many eggs from my lovely partner, fertilize few, and transfer a couple into my uterus.
Does Patricia Miller know anything about me and my parther (and others like us) other than we are gay and want children? Nope. I would hazard she doesn't. Could she know the summer we had after hearing partner couldn't have children, something she's dreamed intensely about for years? It doesn't matter that we're lesbians-- the hurt was still there. But when our RE opened this option for us, it eased some hurt.
The wild hate-- I just don't understand it. We can theorize all we want, but seriously, I look down at myself and can't figure out why people would want to stop me or my partner from having children. We'll be great parents. There's nothing about being gay or not being gay that makes one person more fit than another to parent.
I don't know. I'm probably not even expressing myself very well here.
All I know is I am thankful for people like Julie for bringing attention to this, and I am thankful for all the other angry people, because right now, all I can do is be inordinately inexpressably sad.
Posted by: Katie/WannaBeMom at Oct 5, 2005 2:27:57 PM
And if you think about it, wasn't Jesus, according to the story, conceived through some divine ART??? After all, Mary's husband wasn't his bio dad.
Posted by: pixi at Oct 5, 2005 2:30:38 PM
I live in Indiana, and I've been busy calling all of my infected, er, infertile friends to let them know. I've tried to sit and right a strong letter, but ya know, I can't get beyond "you are such a fucking idiot!" This may take some more thought...
Posted by: Suzanne at Oct 5, 2005 2:41:01 PM
HOLY MARE!!!
So, correct me if I am wrong...it's OK to pick up a member of the opposite sex in a bar/parking lot/trash dump - take them into a dark alley and conceive without exchanging pertinent info like medical history/marital status/first names. But it's NOT OK to have a full medical history on record and use genetic material that has been willingly given for the purpose of conception?
What kind of back-ass-country-fuck-redneck thought this one up??? What will they think of next in the name of "protecting" our society?
BTW...slightly off topic but my DH wants to adopt my son since he IS the kids father (biology aside, obviously). We went to a lawyer and were told that IT DOESN'T MATTER that the biological father is an asshole that hasn't see his son in over 4 years. If he won't allow the adoption, we're screwed. Also, if we did get him to agree we (including ME) have to go through a background check and have home screenings to see if WE are fit. Never mind that I have always had custody and raised my son by myself (until I got married 6 yrs ago). How's that for bizarre. What if they found us "unfit"??? Who gets to decide this crap?
<<>>
"We need to think when we vote. We are supposed to vote for the person best suited for the job that will represent OUR views and best interest in government. Never mind if they are a Democrat, Republican or card-carrying member of the Idiot party. If they represent YOUR views, vote for them. If you don't vote, don't complain when you are getting screwed. You had a chance, you blew it."
Thanks for letting me vent. :o)
Posted by: SillyMommy at Oct 5, 2005 2:47:57 PM
Wow. This is really an amazing thing. Terrible amazing, not terrific amazing. There really is no way this will pass.
I would like to be a gentle voice of dissent, however, by saying that Christianity is not the devil of this issue. The issue is a warped sense of righteous politics that forces itself into the individual lives of men and women in this country.
If you're going to attack people with the story of Jesus' conception, it might be good to reread the story. Mary was on the verge of being stoned when Joseph claimed her as his wife (saying he was responsible for the pregnancy) even though they hadn't done the horizontal mambo. He is the one who saved Jesus from being destroyed, not the politics of the day. Similarly, because they were betrothed, they were officially considered "married" without ceremony. (If you read the text, you'll see he was going to "divorce her quietly" before the angel came to him to say it was cool that Mary was pregnant.) That means they would be exempt from the idiotic laws being proposed in Indiana.
I'm not saying what's being proposed is anything more than insane, but I think the fight should stay in the arena necessary for change and not in mindless half-truths and self-righteous religious attacks.
Posted by: Kristin at Oct 5, 2005 3:00:32 PM
I'm starting to get the feeling that if we went into the secret Republican planning bunker we would find a copy of Handmaid's Tale marked "reference" with implementation notes in the margins. Seriously folks... this is getting scary.
Posted by: V's Herbie at Oct 5, 2005 3:02:10 PM
I sent the lovely senator a little love note this morning after writing about it on my site. Hopefully if enough of us do, we'll have some effect.
Posted by: Jenn at Oct 5, 2005 3:04:54 PM
Greetings, my wife is a big fan of this blog, and I happen to write a blog focused on the Indiana legislature. I am a lawyer, and while I think you're right that some of the invasive language governing a physician's ability to perform assistive reproductive procedures on unmarried individuals does not apply in situations where the genetic mother and father are the "intended parents".
However, if you read further in the legislation, before intended parents can enter into a "gestational agreement" with a surrogate, the intended parents have to be married and they must undergo an assessment by a state approved agency. Among other things, the parents have to provide the agency with information concerning "the family lifestyle of the intended parents, including a description of individual participation in faith-based or church activities, hobbies, and other interests."
If anyone happens to be interested:
http://www.masson.us/blog/archives/2005/10/health_finance.html#more
Posted by: Doug at Oct 5, 2005 3:10:42 PM
In Blue Hill, Nebraska it is unlawful for a woman wearing a hat to eat onions in public. This Miller's proposed bill reeks of the same simple-mindedness from a century ago. Trying to pass herself off as a "female political representative" is an afront to women everywhere.
Posted by: DD at Oct 5, 2005 3:11:20 PM
I'm not in agreement in *any* way, but it does make me think about all of the hoops and hurdles to adopt, and wonder less about why only those who want to adopt have to go through so much crap to "prove their worth as potential parents". It's never been fair that because my body won't reproduce, even *with* ART that I have to now prove my fitness as a mother. (I have to do it *AGAIN* now, even though we are raising our nearly 3 year old pretty well, since we would like a second baby.
THAT chaps my hide.
But, I digress.... I doubt this bill will actually go anywhere.
Lisa
Posted by: Lisa at Oct 5, 2005 3:27:35 PM
Someone in a previous comment said that there is no way that this will pass. Well, maybe not in Indiana, but I'm afraid that Utah will get upset that some other state was going for the Most Repressive Child-Related Message-Sending Laws In The Country title and begin drafting their own version of this law for January. Already our adoption laws prohibit co-habitating, un-married couples from adopting because the state has a vested interest in promoting heterosexual, married, two-parent families. But still, Lesbians are managing to get pregnant using donor sperm and it isn't a huge stretch of the imagination to think that someone in our legislature is going to think this bill is a great idea because nothing else the people in this state have done to keep gays from having children (the adoption laws, not letting single women use sperm from Utah's only sperm bank, our anti-gay marriage amendment, etc) has worked very well. We just keep having kids anyway. Obviously we must be stopped.
Posted by: Trista at Oct 5, 2005 3:29:38 PM
I live in Indiana, and I am APPALLED. :(
Posted by: Kristin at Oct 5, 2005 3:42:37 PM
