Kansas Kills Sperm Donation
The state of Kansas has single handedly put sperm donation as a option for conception in jeopardy. The state is going after a man who donated his sperm to a lesbian couple for child support since the couple broke up and the custodial parent applied for welfare. The man did deliver his sperm to the couple without going through a doctor, but there was also an agreement signed by all parties relieving him of parental responsibility. Why not hold the other half of the couple accountable? Would the same thing be done by the state if a woman surrogated for a male gay couple and the same situation occured? With equal rights comes equal resposibilities don't you think?
Comments
Way to go Kansas, how dumb.
Posted by Patty in Ohio, USA on 01/11/13 at 01:59 AM
The legal system has rarely had anything more than a passing aquaintance with the law, rights, and justice. And in this case, it is being used to commit a crime.
Posted by Jim on 01/11/13 at 07:40 AM
"Why not hold the other half of the couple accountable?"
Because Kansas is one of those states currently run by ultra-conservatives who refuse to do anything which might imply any form of legitimacy to a non-heterosexual couple.
Because Kansas is one of those states currently run by ultra-conservatives who refuse to do anything which might imply any form of legitimacy to a non-heterosexual couple.
Posted by SteveWithAQ on 01/11/13 at 08:28 AM
IIRC, there are, currently, 11 states that REQUIRE one to through "proper channels" to make a legitimate donation! It sounded to me like they're more worried about not getting their money than anything else.
At any rate.. the mother and her S/O separated and whichever one kept the kid was/is unable to support it.
@Jim: You're right! "Legal" and "Justice" have little in common any more.
@Steve: I agree with you, in part. If the gubment wants to get involved with "the marriage act" by selling licences, giving tax breaks, and other "rights" then IMO, these infringements/restrictions/benefits need to be applied equally to all citizens wither it's 1M+1F or 1M+1M or 1F+1F or 2M+1F or.... whatever form the contract may be written for. Personally, I'm aiming for me, 2 35yos, 1 25yo, and 1 18yo just to round things out.
At any rate.. the mother and her S/O separated and whichever one kept the kid was/is unable to support it.
@Jim: You're right! "Legal" and "Justice" have little in common any more.
@Steve: I agree with you, in part. If the gubment wants to get involved with "the marriage act" by selling licences, giving tax breaks, and other "rights" then IMO, these infringements/restrictions/benefits need to be applied equally to all citizens wither it's 1M+1F or 1M+1M or 1F+1F or 2M+1F or.... whatever form the contract may be written for. Personally, I'm aiming for me, 2 35yos, 1 25yo, and 1 18yo just to round things out.
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 01/11/13 at 09:22 AM
Sorry to rain on anyone's conspiracy, but the state laws concerning donations are written to protect individuals in many ways on several levels.
Suppose you make a donation with the understanding that the child won't be your financial responsibility, but when hard times hit, the recipient conveniently forgets your agreement and sues you for child support.
Suppose you die from a genetic condition. If the state has no record of your donation, they can't advise the child to get checked for it.
Suppose . . . suppose . . . suppose . . .
The legal forms have been created to protect everyone involved. Registration and testing have been instituted to protect the resultant children.
None of the state laws can be used to control, harass, or deny rights to non-conventional couples. That would be grounds for a very nasty Federal lawsuit.
The cost to do it right is very small when compared to the cost of raising a child. If you can't afford the $37.50 for a health certificate, maybe you shouldn't be thinking of having a child.
In this instance, they violated medical guidelines as well as state laws regarding donations. It's coming back to bite them in the behind. It's not unexpected or unwarranted.
Suppose you make a donation with the understanding that the child won't be your financial responsibility, but when hard times hit, the recipient conveniently forgets your agreement and sues you for child support.
Suppose you die from a genetic condition. If the state has no record of your donation, they can't advise the child to get checked for it.
Suppose . . . suppose . . . suppose . . .
The legal forms have been created to protect everyone involved. Registration and testing have been instituted to protect the resultant children.
None of the state laws can be used to control, harass, or deny rights to non-conventional couples. That would be grounds for a very nasty Federal lawsuit.
The cost to do it right is very small when compared to the cost of raising a child. If you can't afford the $37.50 for a health certificate, maybe you shouldn't be thinking of having a child.
In this instance, they violated medical guidelines as well as state laws regarding donations. It's coming back to bite them in the behind. It's not unexpected or unwarranted.
Posted by Phideaux on 01/11/13 at 01:19 PM
Ah... the 2ed thing you mentioned was foisted upon the dude by the very gubment you're claiming is only trying to protect him!
Anyhow.... Fearless leader is about to (or has just) launched over 5,000 new regs and we're held responsible to obey them all. The system is broken!
Anyhow.... Fearless leader is about to (or has just) launched over 5,000 new regs and we're held responsible to obey them all. The system is broken!
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 01/11/13 at 03:21 PM
I agree with Steve. Phideaux, I'm sure that what you're putting forward are the arguments used by the various gubmints to justify putting their laws on y body, but I'm afraid that the genetic condition argument, at the very least, would therefore require everyone who's had a one-night stand to also register. As for the child support argument, that's what signed contracts are for. Although the Great State of Kansas appears to have forgotten that little detail.
Posted by TheCannyScot in Atlanta, GA on 01/12/13 at 12:20 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Category: Babies