Ban Artificial Insemination for Gay Couples

At least that is what Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall (R-Manassas) would like to see happen if his new bill becomes law. Marshall's bill, HB 187 would prohibit lesbian couples form using artificial insemination to conceive a child and would prohibit gay men from contracting with an unmarried surrogate mother to have a child.

Marshall, while apparently a bigot, is not an idiot. Marshall knows that banning patients from getting the procedure would likely result in an almost automatic reversal of the law as unconsitutional, he has decided to attack the issue from a regulatory side. Marshall's bill would prohibit doctors from peforming the procedure. The bill reads:

No individual licensed by a health regulatory board shall assist with or perform any intervening medical technology, whether in vivo or in vitro, for or on an unmarried woman that completely or partially replaces sexual intercourse as the means of conception, including, but not limited to, artifical insemination by donor, cryopreservation of gametes and embryos, invitro fertilization, embryo transfer, gamete intrafallopian tube transfer, and low tubal ovum transfer.(emphasis added).

Since the legislature can regulate the practice of medicine, Marshall thinks this regulatory type approach may have a better chance than an outright ban by certain people seeking the procedure, since such a law would certainly be banned almost from the get-go as unconsitutional. Now of course, single women can't have in vitro, the only way they could have kids under Marshall's bill is by normal sexual intercourse.

Right now I can envision three challenges to this law.

First, in vitro clinics may be able to make a case for the interference with their business. True, the state can regulate medical practices, but this rule may ask the clinics to violate the privacy of their clients. The clinics will now have to ask for a marriage license before giving treatment.

Second, single women who chose to have children without be married are now being denied their procreative rights--a fundamental right under our constitution. If a woman wants to concieve a child by artificial insemination, she is being denied equal protection.

Third, gay rights groups are going to challenge this bill as a direct violation of their equal protection. In general, gay and lesbian couples don't have the same marrigae rights as straight couples or even straight single people, but I would be willing to wager that the courts are not going to deny them procreative rights. Although the procreative rights agnle, at least to my knowledge, has not been tested and would make a great legal challenge.

Yet the absurdity does not end. I have to admit, initially I figured it was one of hundreds of dumb bills introduced in legislative sessions every year and I was prepared to dismiss this bill. But when Marshall makes that arguement, I just about ran off the road in surprise. According to WMAL 630 AM monring news on Thursday, by introducing the bill, Marshall argued that men who act as sperm donors were--Get this

THE MORAL EQUIVALENT OF RAPISTS.

If I were a sperm donor, I would be deeply offended. Of course, sperm donors cannot sue Marshall for defamation since Marshall only expressed an opinion, as asinine as it may be, it is only an opinion.

Here's to hoping this bigoted bill dies in Committee.