Progressive. Queer. Feminist. Opinionated.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

No lesbian pregnancies for you, Indiana

It's early days yet, but "Legislation has been introduced in the Indiana legislature that would prohibit gays, lesbians and single people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child."

So unlike some of my co-bloggers, I admit: I'm probably a tool of the patriarchy. I have a beautiful fiancee who I love very much, and while we're very much co-partners in life, we're developing a more traditional arrangement than is generally espoused these days. While I go to work and put food on the table, she's going to stay home and keep house, make dinner, and raise our kids. It's all stuff that needs to get done one way or the other anyway -- why not do it a way that works? Tools of the patriarchy are we, and damned pleased that we've worked it out to both our satisfactions.

On the other hand: I'm the one who's going to be pregnant. And I love the idea. Babies babies babies! Taking over the household! Giggling at light switches! Developing pincher grip! I'm a biological clock ready to ring. So my mothering instincts get pretty het up (so to speak) when someone -- for instance, Senator Patricia Miller -- champions a bill that:

would bar any doctor from assisting in a pregnancy through intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection without making a number of "determinations" about the "suitability of the candidate."


First of all, I'm not sure I'm too keen on the idea of eugenics to start with, and secondly, one of the determining factors that suggest "suitability" is, naturally, the presence of vaguely proven heterosexuality -- ya gotta be married to a manfolk if you're a woman looking to have babies. Why? Do we want to guarantee a stable two-parent home life? You can get that with registered partners or even, heaven forfend, gay marriage. Or do you want to keep the nasty Gay Gene from infecting our precious babies?

There's no real answer given to that in this particular article, but there is a hint as to why this legislation is coming up at all. Drumroll, please:

Miller says that assisted pregnancy is totally unregulated.


Yes. I see. As opposed to the completely regulated world of unassisted pregnancies.

And let's not forget, I can always just call up my buddy Friendly Male and get a needle-less syringe full of the good stuff. At the end of the day, this bill wouldn't stop anyone but the people who really need medical help to get pregnant and who may not fit the idea of "perfect parent" someone seems to have concocted. Who does this really benefit? And who is this really trying to hurt?

(Link)


EDIT: *cough* I appear to have, uh, done a repeat post. Oh well. Two viewpoints for the price of one!

EDIT AGAIN: Wow, okay and Boing Boing too. They have a pile of more information there, including a list of the supposed "determinations" that would qualify you for the apparently-unachievable-without-medical-assistance state of pregnancy. Mark's right -- the damn thing does read like a eugenics promo.

2 Comments:

Blogger Harper said...

Ooooh, yours is far more in-depth than mine. You win the Indiana Legislature Is Stupid and Sucks prize. Wheee!

11:23 PM

 
Anonymous Wherdragon said...

This is one of those things where I can't really even get my mind around what the congresscritters (Boingboing's term) are thinking.
While the point about wanting to make sure people are going to be good parents before they have kids makes a certain amount of sense (i.e. I can see why they would think that's a good idea), I'm stumped as to how the lifestyle or even criminal record of an egg or sperm donor really matters, unless you are doing eugenics. And I fail to see how this is anything but anti-gay, though it also excludes a huge number of other groups, including whoever's "lifestyle" the state doesn't like.

"You don't go to church? No baby for you!"
"You read DailyKos? No baby for you!"
"Your favorite color is orange? No baby for you!"

I'd almost feel better if they came right out and said that they were trying to keep gays from having kids. Or non-Christian white heterosexuals. Or whoever they're really targeting.

8:25 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home