HB 187
HB 187 Unmarried women; prohibition on provision of certain intervening medical technology.
Summary as introduced:
Prohibition on the provision of certain intervening medical technology to unmarried women. No individual licensed by a health regulatory board shall assist with or perform any intervening medical technology, whether in vivo or in vitro, for or on an unmarried woman that completely or partially replaces sexual intercourse as the means of conception, including, but not limited to, artificial insemination by donor, cryopreservation of gametes and embryos, invitro fertilization, embryo transfer, gamete intrafallopian tube transfer, and low tubal ovum transfer.
[more]
I will admit that I have mixed feelings over this one.
The argument is that a woman's right is not as important as the child's right to have a father.
What do you think?
6 comments:
It's plain and simple. It's a huge violation of privacy rights. No lawmaker, nor anyone else should declare that because a person is unmarried, that they should not be able to have a child.
If this is the direction that we are going - we should simply exterminate all kids who don't have dads in their life right? Come on now.
This legislation is outright discrimination and has clear indications that it is aimed at gays and lesbians... especially seeing as how this certain lawmaker is notoriously anti-gay and has tried in the past few years to pass anti-gay legislation.
It is a woman's right to choose. In this case to choose life. Think about it.
This legislation will probably not pass (look at this legislators history), but if it were to pass it would be overturned in the courts.
Two points:
1 - I would see this as requiring the same qualification test as adoption. You really don't want some dope head getting preg. just to increase her social "help".
2 - NO public funding (tax payers money) should go to these types of cases. If the person is not in a situation to take care of the costs either privately or with insurance then they obviously can not afford to have a child.
Justadog...
This bill would require all doctors to refuse a woman the right to have a child if she is not married. If you are going to see your doctor to pursue having a child in this manner - you aren't going to do it simply to get welfare like you seem to be implying.
1.) These procedures cost a good amount of money. You need insurance - or you need the financial backing yourself. Does insurance even cover the initial cost of the procedure? I don't know the answer to that.
2.) If you are wiling to do this to have a child, the woman, or couple would only do it because they want a child that badly. It's never an accident. These children will never be accidents... they will be very loved.
Am I wrong?
I'm a 56 year old male with no biological children (four step kids). I guess I don't have that biological urge to reproduce myself. But it seems to me the whole notion is self centered. Me, Me, Me. Kind of on the line of abortion and divorce. What's best for me. There are a lot of kids that need adopted.
I'm not convinced that we need a law. A bit too much government interference for me. Although maybe we should have one for guys as old as Larry King and David Letterman becoming new fathers.
Dear anonymous, maybe there is a reason that gay couples don't reproduce-because it's not normal!
Oh yeah, for those who say that conservatives are overreacting when they say that marriage should be between a man and a woman only. Please see where open marriages can lead. Check out the report in the Toronto Star of Canada:
OTTAWA—A new study for the federal justice department says Canada should get rid of its law banning polygamy, and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships.
Come on, Robin, we're conservatives. You know that means we don't allow our women to have any rights!
it makes me wonder just how often that this is happening in their state.
must be a real epidemic to have to pass a law
Post a Comment