PDA

View Full Version : Indiana Republicans want to regulate childbirth


Sam L
Oct 5th, 2005, 11:45 AM
Pathetic.

Only women who are married will be considered for the "gestational
certificate" that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the
pregnancy. Further, the "gestational certificate" will only be given
to married couples that successfully complete the same screening
process currently required by law of adoptive parents.

As it the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent "who
knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction
procedure" without court approval, "commits unauthorized
reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor." The criminal charges will be
the same for physicians who commit "unauthorized practice of
artificial reproduction."

The change in Indiana law to require marriage as a condition for
motherhood and criminalizing "unauthorized reproduction" was
introduced at a summer meeting of the Indiana General Assembly's
Health Finance Commission on September 29 and a final version of the
bill will come up for a vote at the next meeting at the end of this
month.

Source: http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/prelim/HFCO04.pdf

VivalaSeles
Oct 5th, 2005, 11:49 AM
W-h-a-t? :eek:

It seems Republicans in Indiana want to follow the example of Communist China in regulating childbirth. :eek:

Veritas
Oct 5th, 2005, 11:53 AM
India has a long way to go before they'll be seen as a superpower in the world's eyes. Sounds cliche, but a booming economy doesn't necessarily equal respect. And putting women at such a degrading level is probably the worst setback a country who's looking for worldwide respect can do.

VivalaSeles
Oct 5th, 2005, 11:56 AM
India has a long way to go before they'll be seen as a superpower in the world's eyes. Sounds cliche, but a booming economy doesn't necessarily equal respect. And putting women at such a degrading level is probably the worst setback a country who's looking for worldwide respect can do.

It's not India ;) It's Indiana :eek: :tape:

Rtael
Oct 5th, 2005, 11:56 AM
This is about the state of Indiana, not the country of India.

Sam L
Oct 5th, 2005, 12:00 PM
India has a long way to go before they'll be seen as a superpower in the world's eyes. Sounds cliche, but a booming economy doesn't necessarily equal respect. And putting women at such a degrading level is probably the worst setback a country who's looking for worldwide respect can do.
What you've said applies 100% to what the Republicans are doing to America.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 5th, 2005, 12:03 PM
Assuming this is not a hoax, it is a law that will never survive. Still, I guess you have to fight against these things to make sure they die.

Sam L
Oct 5th, 2005, 12:07 PM
Assuming this is not a hoax, it is a law that will never survive. Still, I guess you have to fight against these things to make sure they die.
It's on the Indiana state government website!

Veritas
Oct 5th, 2005, 12:16 PM
It's not India ;) It's Indiana :eek: :tape:

I read too quickly :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 5th, 2005, 12:20 PM
It's on the Indiana state government website!

Since I'm lazy, is Indiana a Republican dominated legislature? I find it hard to believe that anyone seriously thinks this will ever be an effective law but I believe you that there is a Bill going forward. I'm just wondering about its prospects of being passed. Even if it is passed, it would clearly be unconstitutional.

Sam L
Oct 5th, 2005, 12:22 PM
Since I'm lazy, is Indiana a Republican dominated legislature? I find it hard to believe that anyone seriously thinks this will ever be an effective law but I believe you that there is a Bill going forward. I'm just wondering about its prospects of being passed. Even if it is passed, it would clearly be unconstitutional.
If I remember correctly, I think it was the swing state in the last election that the Republicans took after a long counting process. So it is Republican, I think.

Rtael
Oct 5th, 2005, 12:30 PM
Indiana has been pretty steadily republican I think.

Rtael
Oct 5th, 2005, 12:33 PM
I counted the house as 52-48 for Republicans and the senate as 34-17 for Republicans.

Lord Nelson
Oct 5th, 2005, 12:51 PM
Anything that discourages people to have more kids is a good thing. I'm pro-abortion and that too is a good thing. I'm against these fertility treatment drugs because it discourages people to adopt children and can cause mutliple births. I'm an enviromentalist and it pains me to see how overpopulation & greenhouse gases harm the environment.
As for India (and yes I know this is about Indiana) I wish that they are more serious in regulating childbirth, like China. Maybe scientists should develop drugs that ensure that people can only have up to certain number of kids. Already scientists are saying that the quality of spermatozoids in males is decreasing could eventually contribute to less children being born.

SelesFan70
Oct 5th, 2005, 01:20 PM
That's purely Puritanical :eek:

Ted of Teds Tennis
Oct 5th, 2005, 01:48 PM
Childbirth is already regulated in many places, albeit in a different way. A quick search on so-called "drive-thru delivery" legislation quickly revealed any number of cases of politicians wanting to regulate how long people stay in hospital after childbirth, such as this (http://www.housegop.state.ct.us/members/bios/Winklerbio.htm)

She was also a leading force behind the enactment of a 1996 law that requires health care plans regulated by the state to provide a minimum of 48 hours of hospital coverage for maternity patients and their newborn children (the "drive-thru delivery" bill), and was a primary sponsor of the 1995 law guaranteeing women covered by HMOs and other health plans direct access to their obstetrician/gynecologist.

Granted, Winkler is just another of those wicked Republicans trying to legislate childbirth....

Wigglytuff
Oct 5th, 2005, 02:31 PM
yeah only a retard would support anything like this. its not going to pass. not even in a republican state, because for the shit those people talk red states have more than thier fair share of out of wed lock childbirths.

lizchris
Oct 5th, 2005, 02:32 PM
Can Eugenics be far behind?

griffin
Oct 5th, 2005, 02:37 PM
Childbirth is already regulated in many places, albeit in a different way. A quick search on so-called "drive-thru delivery" legislation quickly revealed any number of cases of politicians wanting to regulate how long people stay in hospital after childbirth, such as this (http://www.housegop.state.ct.us/members/bios/Winklerbio.htm)

She was also a leading force behind the enactment of a 1996 law that requires health care plans regulated by the state to provide a minimum of 48 hours of hospital coverage for maternity patients and their newborn children (the "drive-thru delivery" bill), and was a primary sponsor of the 1995 law guaranteeing women covered by HMOs and other health plans direct access to their obstetrician/gynecologist.

Granted, Winkler is just another of those wicked Republicans trying to legislate childbirth....

That's not regulating childbirth, that's regulating INSURANCE COVERAGE.

Even assuming you're trying to be clever, the fact that most Republican's aren't whack-jobs doesn't change the fact that some clown in Indiana actually submitted Indiana bill, or change the fact that a significant portion of the GOP does very much support all kinds of invasive regulations on pregnant woma.

hablo
Oct 5th, 2005, 04:11 PM
that is un-be-lie-va-ble !! :o

tennisbum79
Oct 5th, 2005, 04:35 PM
Just what THE HELL is going on with the GOP lately?

It seems like they reversing course, but in way that only republicans can;
with a lot of meanness.

Abortion:
Abort black babies only, as a punishment for their parents, and a security or quality of life measure for the society at large. (Bennet, circa 2005)

Affirmative Action
Bush friends or friends of friend.
This is practiced with a republican twist. Unlike the affirmative action applied to blacks and other minorities, you do not have to be qualified for the job.
Example: Michael Brown and a host of others in the executive, Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.



Virtues (Gambling, Corruption, General ethics)
If you are not harming anybody (Bill Bennet gambling), it's fine.
If you are harming democrats or perceived enemies, it is also fine (Tom Delay). Outing CIA agent to hurt the opposition is fair game.



Godís Children:
God no longer loves all children. God will bring wrath, unthinkable suffering to those who deviate from his teaching, including small black babies in New Orleans Superdome.
All this because of what some adults, mostly whites, did in the French quarter or on Bourbon street. Wonder what will happen to Las Vegas.



Old Battles Re-fought
However, republicans are revisiting some old issues from the past (1920ís and 1930s), which any one in the modern world thought were settled issues. Religious republican intellectuals have now cast the issue of creationism under the new name of Intelligent Design, which is really an hypothesis stating that given the complexity of the world and its living beings, it could not have been created as it has been taught by the Evolutionary theory of Darwin. There must have been a higher being (God) who created the world, not through the evolutionary process as it is currently accepted in the scientific community.

This amounts to a 2-step process to re-introducing the teaching of Creationism in school. First challenge the theory of evolution with Intelligent Design, then move to creationism teaching.

DutchieGirl
Oct 5th, 2005, 04:50 PM
:eek: "You cannot be serious" ;) (In response to the article at the top of the thread). ;)

tennisbum79
Oct 5th, 2005, 04:51 PM
If the law equally applies to men and women, we could have the unpleasant situation where a man is involved in more than one case.



Teenage mothers, would they still be welcome by the republicans for not choosing abortion or will be theyl be forced to have early abortions to avoid persecution?

Are republicans becoming more and more shortsighted since the most shortsighted president got elected?

tennisbum79
Oct 5th, 2005, 04:53 PM
:eek: "You cannot be serious" ;) (In response to the article at the top of the thread). ;)

Not to the article in this thread in particular.
However this article is now part of a general climate of recklessness and shortsighted measures or pronouncements in the republican party.

wipeout
Oct 5th, 2005, 06:14 PM
So what this regulation in the first post in this thread is saying is that the Indiana Republicans want only married women to be able to get fertility treatment.

It's just some people are reacting like some Republicans have gone more barking mad than usual and are trying to regulate natural conception... although I can understand why some might think they might try something like that. ;)

griffin
Oct 5th, 2005, 06:15 PM
I'd still call that "barking mad"

Wigglytuff
Oct 5th, 2005, 06:37 PM
Just what THE HELL is going on with the GOP lately?

It seems like they reversion course, but in way that only republicans can;
with a lot of meanness.

Abortion:
Abort black babies only, as a punishment for their parent, and a security or quality of life measure for the society at large. ( Bennet, circa 2005)

Affirmative Action
Bush friends or friends of friend.
This is practice with a republican twist. Unlike the affirmative action applied to blacks and other minorities, you do not have to be qualified for the job.
Example: Michael Brown and a host of others in the executive, Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.



Virtues (Gambling, Corruption, General ethics)
If you are not harming anybody (Bill Bennet gambling), its fine.
If you are harming democrats or perceived enemies, it is also fine (Tom Delay). Outing CIA agent to hust the opposition



Godís Children:
God no longer loves all children. God will bring wrath, unthinkable suffering to those who deviate from his teaching, including small black babies in New Orleans Superdome.
All this because of what some adults, mostly whites, did in the French quarter or on Bourbon street. Wonder what will happen to Las Vegas.



Old Battles Re-fought
However, republicans are revisiting some issues from the past (1920ís and 1930s), which any the modern world thought were settled issues. Religious republicans intellectual have now cast the issue of creationism under a new name of Intelligent Design, which is really an hypothesis stating that given the complexity of the world and its living beings, it could not have been created as it has been taught by the Evolutionary theory of Darwin. There must have been a higher being (God) who created the world, no through the evolutionary process as it is currently accepted in the scientific community.

This amounts to a 2-step process to re-introducing the teaching of Creationism in school. First challenge the theory of evolution with Intelligent Design, then move to creationism teaching.

:scared:
:scared:
that is so frighteningly true

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Oct 5th, 2005, 06:58 PM
Indiana is solidly republican. The only notable famous democrat is Senator Evan Bayh, whose daddy was a famous politician. He's considered a moderate Dem and will run for prez in 2008.

Otherwise - they are a big red state.

Richie77
Oct 5th, 2005, 06:59 PM
Everyone on this board knows I'm from Indiana, and this is the first I've heard of this :confused:

So, if we read the law the way it appears to be written, only married women will be allowed to get fertility treatments. That disallows lesbian couples to get those same treatments because, surprise, surprise, they can't legally get married.

I'm so proud of my state right now :rolleyes: :ras:

hablo
Oct 5th, 2005, 07:03 PM
Everyone on this board knows I'm from Indiana, and this is the first I've heard of this :confused:

So, if we read the law the way it appears to be written, only married women will be allowed to get fertility treatments. That disallows lesbian couples to get those same treatments because, surprise, surprise, they can't legally get married.

I'm so proud of my state right now :rolleyes: :ras:

sucks for unmarried couples too or single women who want to have kids on their own.

not everyone believes in marriage !!!! :angel:

Richie77
Oct 5th, 2005, 07:20 PM
I know. But after this last year, it's hard not to think that some of these laws are reactions to gay marriage.

Wigglytuff
Oct 5th, 2005, 07:59 PM
its completely unconstitutional.
and doesnt stand a chance, its a political move

marmite1
Oct 5th, 2005, 08:19 PM
I know. But after this last year, it's hard not to think that some of these laws are reactions to gay marriage.

Agreed. It seems a mechanism to prevent gay/lesbian couples from having children and families.

hablo
Oct 5th, 2005, 08:45 PM
Agreed. It seems a mechanism to prevent gay/lesbian couples from having children and families.
indeed, among other things :angel:

tennisbum79
Oct 6th, 2005, 12:44 AM
Anything that discourages people to have more kids is a good thing. I'm pro-abortion and that too is a good thing. I'm against these fertility treatment drugs because it discourages people to adopt children and can cause mutliple births. I'm an enviromentalist and it pains me to see how overpopulation & greenhouse gases harm the environment.
As for India (and yes I know this is about Indiana) I wish that they are more serious in regulating childbirth, like China. Maybe scientists should develop drugs that ensure that people can only have up to certain number of kids. Already scientists are saying that the quality of spermatozoids in males is decreasing could eventually contribute to less children being born.

Are you aware that both in India and China they abort only girl babies?

In China under the one-child policy, parents have systematically chosen to abort the girls (because boys carry the family legacy), as a result, now in some provinces, men outnumber women and many men have to travel a long way in order to find a mate.

In India, because of high cost associated with the practice of dowry, couples also abort girl babies.

As for Indiana republicans passing this law, how do they reconcile this against the GOP's official position on abortion?

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 6th, 2005, 07:41 AM
I'm now getting confused as to what this Bill would actually achieve. I'm sure I'd be opposed to it anyway, but is it just about IVF or what? I'd still oppose it even if it was only about IVF, but it would put a different complexion on things.

tennisbum79
Oct 6th, 2005, 02:43 PM
Indiana is solidly republican. The only notable famous democrat is Senator Evan Bayh, whose daddy was a famous politician. He's considered a moderate Dem and will run for prez in 2008.

Otherwise - they are a big red state.

I can even take it further; they were red long before red became fashionable.

The History Channel showed a documentary on Indiana Republican Party in the late 1920s and early 1930's. At that time, as a self respected member of the republican party, you also had to be a KKK member, otherwise, you would be suspected by the voters as not truly committed to the cause of the party.

It was not unusual, the show asserts, to find the same people or family members at a cross burning ceremony with hood on their head you already saw at GOP rally. With 2 differences, the outfits and the main speakers. At the regular GOP party rally, the main speakers are the politicians,
whereas at the KKK rally, it is the Grand Dragon, the politicians would of course say few word to let people know of their presence.

It was like being in a time warp. Everything seems to be so normal and yet unreal.
These were church goers, Sunday school teachers, and professionals as well as factory workers. I believe there was one politician who questioned the allegiance to the KKK, and he was not viewed favorably. To the truly committed, he was in the mold of a northeast republican such as Maine's Suzan Collins or Connecticut Chris Shays. He was what they now called RINO, Republican In Name Only

Richie77
Oct 6th, 2005, 06:43 PM
And remarkably...Indiana is still in that time warp. :help:

wipeout
Oct 6th, 2005, 08:20 PM
I'm now getting confused as to what this Bill would actually achieve. I'm sure I'd be opposed to it anyway, but is it just about IVF or what? I'd still oppose it even if it was only about IVF, but it would put a different complexion on things.

I'm fairly sure it's only artificial reproduction like IVF. For a minute when I first read it, I thought they meant all conception, natural or otherwise!