Following a public outcry, an Indiana state legislator has pulled back for further study a piece of proposed legislation that would have sharply limited the use of assisted reproduction medical technologies by married couples, and banned them for everyone else. “State Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, issued a one-sentence statement this afternoon saying: ‘The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission.’ … Under her proposal, couples who need assistance to become pregnant — such as through intrauterine insemination; the use of donor eggs, embryos and sperm; in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer or other medical means — would have to be married to each other. In addition, married couples who needed donor sperm and eggs to become pregnant would be required to go through the same rigorous assessment process of their fitness to be parents as do people who adopt a child.” (Mary Beth Schneider, “Legislator drops controversial plan”, Indianapolis Star, Oct. 5).

The bill would have criminalized doctors’ as well as parents’ participation in assisted reproduction except as provided in the rules. Among details of the adoption-like procedures that would be contemplated for married couples under the bill:

A doctor can’t begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child’s being born until the intended parents of the child have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill.

The assessment is very similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana.

Some of the required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, hobbies, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans, letter of reference and criminal history checks.

A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents is also required, including individual participation in faith-based or church activities.

(Niki Kelly, “State bill would limit procreation assistance”, Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette, Oct. 4). For critical comment, see MedPundit, Oct. 6, and Nobody’s Business, Oct. 6. For favorable comments on the draft bill, some of which were sorry it didn’t go even farther, see various commenters at the Institute for American Values’ Family Scholars Blog (Oct. 4). (& welcome Andrew Sullivan readers).

More: David Giacalone comments (Oct. 11):

After representing hundreds of children in Family Court, I am well aware of the difficulties that arise in single-parent families (as well as in both “broken” and intact married families), but this legislation is far too broad and far too intrusive to be a valid response to those problems. Ironically, many who would support such restrictions do so in the name of the most famous child ever artificially conceived by an unmarried mother.

Filed under: family law, Indiana