Actually, if a proposed bill that died in Indiana's legislature but is expected to be possibly brought up again in the 2006 early session is any clue:
(from this link)

It defines assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.

The bill then requires "intended parents" to be married to each other and specifically says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

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.

The legislation appears to affect some married couples, although the rough draft is unclear at times. Miller said the draft will be cleaned up before a vote.

The bill does not apply to assisted reproduction in which the child is the genetic child of both of the intended parents - i.e., the sperm is from the father and the egg is from the mother.

But married couples that need one or the other would still have to go through an assessment process and establish parentage in a court.

A judge couldn't establish parentage of a child born through assisted reproduction without the assessment certificate and a separate certificate from the physician involved.

A court would also be prohibited from granting a petition to establish parentage if the parents have been convicted of several specific crimes listed, such as murder, reckless homicide and neglect of a dependent.

Others include felony battery, arson and any felony drug conviction, although if the offense were committed more than five years before the petition, the judge could choose to grant the petition.

The bill would also establish criminal penalties for those participating in artificial reproductive procedures without following the process. The maximum charge is a misdemeanor.

Indiana Civil Liberties Union Attorney Ken Falk said his office began hearing about the bill Friday - one day after the rough draft was discussed by the Health Finance Commission.

He has not read it fully but said it sets up a clear discrimination that would be difficult to uphold. He considers the bill to be unique nationally.

"My question is `What is the danger that we are legislating against?' Are we saying that only married persons should be able to be parents, which is certainly a slap in the face to many same-sex couples but also to many who don't have a partner but have undertaken being a parent," he said.

Miller said the state often reacts to problems and she instead wants to be proactive on this issue.

"We're not trying to stop people from having kids; we're just trying to find some guidelines," she said.

She did concede it would stop single people from using methods other than sexual intercourse but said "all the studies indicate the best environment for a child is to have a two-parent family - a mother and a father."

As an aside, yes, this counts out gay/les/bi/trans people entirely:

a) in many states gays are not only not allowed to marry but (thanks to FotF and AFA state affiliate lobbying) states cannot even legally recognise domestic partnerships, legal contracts giving "similar status" to adoption, or adult adoption; in Texas the law may be so overbroad as to have outlawed straight, conventional marriage)

b) in at least six states gays cannot legally adopt (two states ban it outright, and four others automatically consider gays as "unfit parents"--meaning even in custody cases they can lose the kid just by virtue of who they are)

Dominionist groups usually promote two separate procedures as alternatives for parents who can't have kids:

a) "Adoption" of "snowflake babies" (extra embryos from embryo transfer programs that have been stored to guard against failure of an embryo transplant procedure)--this is increasingly promoted in the dominionist community, including by the President and by Focus on the Family, and several different groups exist promoting zygote "adoption".

b) Conventional adoption of a child by dominionist parents; these are frequently kids of teenage moms who have either been tricked into dominionist "halfway houses" by dominionist-operated "crisis pregnancy centers"--which force kids to essentially sign themselves over to the agency, live in a dominionist household for nine months, and then either raise the kid in a dominionist home or turn it over to a private adoption agency that only adopts to dominionists--or are committed involuntarily by parents of dominionists

Needless to say, the "adoption agencies" (either zygote "adoption" or the dominionist "halfway-house" adoption agencies) do NOT let single parents adopt, would never consider allowing gays to adopt, and require religious questionaires--occasionally requiring a statement from a minister as to your religious life. Non-dominionist Christians have been documented as being refused adoption by these agencies (including Catholics refused by dominionist adoption agencies; notably, the adoption agency in question was receiving state funding).

by dogemperor on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 08:30:32 AM EST
Parent