Tennessee Bill-Artificial Insemination-Children Illegitimate

[Tennesseer]

I have not followed the 'The kid thread: Planning, pregnancy & parenting' thread but I see it is very popular thread This issue somewhat relates to that thread So I am posting it on this board:

Proposed Tennessee bill aims to label children born through artificial insemination ‘illegitimate’

A proposed Tennessee bill aims to label children born through artificial insemination illegitimate.

The bill, HB 1406, filed by Tennessee State Representative Terri Lynn Weaver, a Republican, seeks to repeal the current statute, WMC Action News 5 reported.

“A child born to a married woman as a result of artificial insemination, with consent of the married woman’s husband, is deemed to be the legitimate child of the husband and wife,” the statute reads.

The bill would repeal that statute, and classify the child as illegitimate, despite the couple being married and the husband giving consent.

Senator Joey Hensley, a Republican, has proposed the bill’s Senate equivalent.

Weaver was elected to the 40th district of the Tennessee House of Representatives in 2008, when she filled the vacant seat of Rep. Frank Buck.

Proposed Tennessee bill aims to label children born through artificial insemination ‘illegitimate’

Here is the Tennessee House bill: TN HB1406 | 2017-2018 | 110th General Assembly

And the Tennessee Senate bill: TN SB1153 | 2017-2018 | 110th General Assembly



I don't see it passing but I wonder what would be the purpose of even proposing such a thing.

[zibazinski]

Who is possibly going to know whether a baby was conceived that way or not? How bizarre.

[grumpyhermit]

I was wondering the purpose of such a bill myself. I thought republicans were all about "smaller government" and "less regulation", and this seems to fly in the face of that.

I am also fairly surprised that the terms "legitimate" and "illegitimate"  are still being used at all. I am not familiar with Tennessee state laws, but are there certain legal benefits that would be affected? Does it somehow play into child support claims? Trying to figure out why this would matter, other than to brand the kid with a metaphorical scarlet letter, and am drawing a blank.

Also, where or when, does a child means of conceptions even get recorded? Wouldn't that just be a medical detail between the family and their doctors?

I know there have been issues with lesbian couples using "donors", but not going through actual facilities, and having that create issues around child support, but this doesn't seem like it would come into play here.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Cause it was a violation of God, DUH.   If God wants you to have a baby you'd be able to have one the good old fashioned way.

Second guess is this is craftily worded swipe against the transgender/gay community so they can't come back and claim discrimination because the lawmakers can say "Oh no it applies to a marriage between men and women too!"

Third guess would be it's someone is lobbying for this to get out of paying child support.   Cause the term "illgetimate" used to be used in order to deny the offspring any rights to property or wealth that the father and his family held.   This was of particular importance to the monarchy.   If you can say that any child not created by your sperm entering her uterus is illegimate it gets you out of paying for child support in the event of divorce.

[zibazinski]

When my dad was born those things were put on your birth certificate whether you were a legitimate birth or not. But that's not the way it is now and since there's little if any stigma in being illegitimate, oh well.  

[Tennesseer]

Just found the reason why for the bill:

Tennessee lawmaker fights backlash against artificial insemination bill

A rural Tennessee Republican lawmaker is facing controversy and backlash after filing legislation that opponents say takes aim at same-sex couples who want to have children through a surrogate by declaring those children illegitimate under state law.

Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver, R-Lancaster, filed legislation late last week that would repeal a state statute that declares children conceived via artificial insemination as "legitimate," if they are born to a woman and her consenting husband.

But no state law makes clear what should happen if children are born to married same-sex couples via artificial insemination.

In a Facebook post on Sunday, Weaver said there is "much confusion" about the bill and that its perception with the public has been misconstrued. In that post she insists the bill "does not apply to same sex marriages at all."

She explains in the post that Attorney General Herbert Slatery issued a brief in a lawsuit "a couple of months ago" that said the state's law was unconstitutional, without elaborating if the law she was referencing was about artificial insemination or marriage.

"So, the repeal of the law does not de-legitimize a child conceived by insemination and, to be honest, the law that will remain on the books is less intrusive into the relationship of a husband and wife than the statute being repealed," she wrote.

Chris Sanders, executive director of the Tennessee Equality Project, called the bill "discriminatory" and more far-reaching than what most assume. He said the bill doesn't just hurt same-sex couples, but even unmarried heterosexual couples who he said might have to go to court to establish paternity if it were repealed.

"This will hit real families, affect their relationships and hurt the state's economy," he said.

Weaver pointed to a separate state law that states paternity can be established other ways, but only if the couple is married.


Tennessee lawmaker fights backlash against artificial insemination bill

[Tennesseer]

Feb 13, 2017 14:01:46 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Cause it was a violation of God, DUH.   If God wants you to have a baby you'd be able to have one the good old fashioned way.

Second guess is this is craftily worded swipe against the transgender/gay community so they can't come back and claim discrimination because the lawmakers can say "Oh no it applies to a marriage between men and women too!"

It's just more evidence of the backwards ass theocracy some people want to turn this country into.

BINGO!

[Kolt!]

Wait, what would happen if the child is labeled illegitimate?

Sounds like this would harm the child more than anything because what an easy way for a parent to just one day decide it isn't their concern... or it'd make it so the parent that has been their for the child suddenly had no legal say which is bs.

This is how me and my girl plan on having children or adoption. My girl wants to have one of her own and adopt two although she's okay even if all we do is adopt. I just want to be a dad so I'm cool with whatever we do. I certainly want my name attached to father and legal rights. And if a concern is coming to the donor for money we don't even want to know the donor as we want it all anonymous.

I think I should start thinking about proposing 😂😂 I'm starting to think I'm missing hints because all of her conversations start with "when we're married " now but this proposal thing is scary business

[Kolt!]

Also how would this effect children that are adopted?

[raeoflyte]

I couldn't get it from the excepts printed, but I think this could legitimately!    be to remove duplicate or conflicting laws from the book.  The other statue doesn't get into means of conception.  

From the article: Thankfully there is another statute TCA 36-2-304 still on the books that makes it

clear that when a child is born to a married woman, the child is presumed

to be that of her husband. So, the repeal of the law does not

de-legitimize a child conceived by insemination and, to be honest, the law

that will remain on the books is less intrusive into the relationship of a

husband and wife than the statute being repealed. Unlike the law being

repealed, the remaining law that will now govern the situation does not

have the government inquiring into the means by which the couple¹s child

came into existence or whose sperm, the husband's or a donor¹s, was used. HB 1406 does not apply to same sex marriages at all!!!! Conflicting laws have got to be repealed, families and lives are affected. Again children who are artificially inseminated ARE NOT ILLEGITIMATE.

and from law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2010/title-36/chapter-2/part-3/36-2-304, that statue: 
Title 36 - Domestic Relations

Chapter 2 - Paternity

Part 3 - Paternity and Legitimation

36-2-304 - Presumption of parentage.



36-2-304. Presumption of parentage.



(a) A man is rebuttably presumed to be the father of a child if:



(1) The man and the child's mother are married or have been married to each other and the child is born during the marriage or within three hundred (300) days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or divorce;



(A) The man has acknowledged his paternity of the child in a writing filed under the putative father registry established by the department of children services, pursuant to § 36-2-318; or



(B) The man has consented in writing to be named the child's father on the birth certificate; or



(C) The man is obligated to support the child under a written voluntary promise or by court order;

[raeoflyte]

Feb 13, 2017 15:31:07 GMT -5 Kolt! said:

Wait, what would happen if the child is labeled illegitimate?

Sounds like this would harm the child more than anything because what an easy way for a parent to just one day decide it isn't their concern... or it'd make it so the parent that has been their for the child suddenly had no legal say which is bs.

This is how me and my girl plan on having children or adoption. My girl wants to have one of her own and adopt two although she's okay even if all we do is adopt. I just want to be a dad so I'm cool with whatever we do. I certainly want my name attached to father and legal rights. And if a concern is coming to the donor for money we don't even want to know the donor as we want it all anonymous.

I think I should start thinking about proposing 😂😂 I'm starting to think I'm missing hints because all of her conversations start with "when we're married " now but this proposal thing is scary business

Dh and I waddled down to the JOP for a marriage certificate specifically for this purpose.  Admittedly as long as I had filled out all of the hospital paperwork showing married, dh would have been able to sign all the birth certificate docs as the father as it wasn't like the hospital asked for proof of our marriage (and we couldn't have provided it to them at that point anyway as it hadn't come in the mail).  But the marriage license was the cheapest way to ensure dh had full rights and responsibilities to the child even if though our marriage wasn't considered legal at the time.  

Good luck with the proposal!  

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Feb 13, 2017 14:02:48 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

When my dad was born those things were put on your birth certificate whether you were a legitimate birth or not. But that's not the way it is now and since there's little if any stigma in being illegitimate, oh well.  

Any hospital that wants me to show my marriage license to prove my child is "legitimate" can kiss my ass.   As long as I am not asking them to foot the bill why on earth does it matter?

[NastyWoman]

"Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver, R-Lancaster, filed legislation late last week that would repeal a state statute that declares childrenconceived via artificial insemination as "legitimate," if theyare born to a woman and her consenting husband" Not discussed anywhere, butI have a suspicious mind --- could the original source of this repeal come from someone that wants to cut a sibling resulting from AI out of its inheritance? Rich daddy hada vasectomy, divorced and went on to have child through AI with second/third/etc wife? Now will reads and I leave 50% of all by property to my son/daugther John/Jane? If John/Jane is not a child of rich daddy I can now fight the will and maybe even win...

[Gardening Grandma]

Feb 13, 2017 13:59:45 GMT -5 grumpyhermit said:

I was wondering the purpose of such a bill myself. I thought republicans were all about "smaller government" and "less regulation", and this seems to fly in the face of that.

I am also fairly surprised that the terms "legitimate" and "illegitimate"  are still being used at all. I am not familiar with Tennessee state laws, but are there certain legal benefits that would be affected? Does it somehow play into child support claims? Trying to figure out why this would matter, other than to brand the kid with a metaphorical scarlet letter, and am drawing a blank.

Also, where or when, does a child means of conceptions even get recorded? Wouldn't that just be a medical detail between the family and their doctors?

I know there have been issues with lesbian couples using "donors", but not going through actual facilities, and having that create issues around child support, but this doesn't seem like it would come into play here.

I thought republicans were all about "smaller government" and "less regulation", and this seems to fly in the face of that.

As does a number of their policies, when it comes to the female gender...    They are openly hypocritical.

[whoisjohngalt]

Are there still "consequences" to be illegitimate child?  I thought it was all about property rights previously, but how does it even matter now>

[billisonboard]

If my wife has a child, the child is my child.  I have parental rights without any need for additional paperwork.  One example, I can order medical treatment.  If there is not an automatic assumption of parental rights, the person not giving physical birth would have to file for adoption to gain parental rights.  I think but for certain.

[Gardening Grandma]

Feb 13, 2017 18:15:24 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Are there still "consequences" to be illegitimate child?  I thought it was all about property rights previously, but how does it even matter now>

Some people still attach a stigma to the term.  Which, I believe, was the entire point of the legislation.

[whoisjohngalt]

Feb 13, 2017 18:34:16 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

If my wife has a child, the child is my child.  I have parental rights without any need for additional paperwork.  One example, I can order medical treatment.  If there is not an automatic assumption of parental rights, the person not giving physical birth would have to file for adoption to gain parental rights.  I think but for certain.

That's actually true.  My lesbian friend and her bimbo wife had to adopt each other's child to be able to do certain things.  But they weren't married back then.   I wonder if it would be different now, that they are married.

[NastyWoman]

And I now wonder what this would do to the twins a very lovely friend of mine has (great mom and no handouts needed before anyone starts to comment). Her twins started life as donor eggs and with the use of AI. So would these kids no longer exist? There is no biological link between the children and the mother, though she did carry them to term. Maybe she needs to adopt them?       

[whoisjohngalt]

The thing is - there will be new laws on the books at some point in the future to deal with all kinds of ways people conceive / birth / get children now days. 

I have no clue what is the purpose of this particular one, but things are getting very complicated and this is just a beginning.

And I wouldn't be surprised if at some point it will get to the case of money and inheritances and such. 

[TheHaitian]

Interesting ... this person needs to mind their own business. That is all I have to say on the subject!

My cousin is pregnant through IVF using her husband sperm, no other way for her to get pregnant.

My wife got pregnant through IVF using donor sperm, it was either that or adoption.

As long the 2 adults in the relationship are in agreement , I had to sign papers/legal papers stating I am taking legal responsibility for that child, everyone else should stay out of it!

[MJ2.0]

Yet another example of people having so much time on their hands that they have to concern themselves with things that don't really matter.

[weltschmerz]

How utterly ridiculous!

[NastyWoman]

Feb 23, 2017 13:04:23 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

Yet another example of people having so much time on their hands that they have to concern themselves with things that don't really matter.

Give them enough time and they'll twist some bible quote such that they'll be able to try and outlaw AI. Really

[haapai]

Feb 13, 2017 18:34:50 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Feb 13, 2017 18:15:24 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Are there still "consequences" to be illegitimate child?  I thought it was all about property rights previously, but how does it even matter now>

Some people still attach a stigma to the term.  Which, I believe, was the entire point of the legislation.

I disagree, I think that there's more than a desire to throw around stigma involved here. 

Family law and inheritance law are very much the creation of the states and the states can have wildly differing statutes.  I seem to have a dim memory of a case in Tennessee a couple of decades ago that left me with the impression that Tennessee's law of presumptive paternity functions a little differently than similar statutes in other states.  In that case, a married woman gave birth to a child who was probably not her husband's child but because of the peculiarities of Tennessee's family law, the other man was completely unable to file a paternity claim without the cooperation of the mother or her spouse.  



If you click on the link in the OP and follow the trail of links, you'll discover that this legislation was very much prompted by a same-sex divorce case and child custody dispute.  If this repeal goes through, there will undoubtedly be consequences for that child. 

And the legislators inserting themselves into this case don't give a chestnut for those consequences.  They just want to throw a monkey wrench at Obergefell.