So if you donate sperm through a sperm bank or a licensed physician, depending on that state's laws, you are not liable financially for the child. That makes sense to me. Otherwise, no one would donate sperm. And besides, people seek anonymous donations of sperm in order to protect themselves from or simply avoid the sperm donor's intervention in their and the child's life. The donor can't demand parental rights and the recipient can't demand child support.

That seems fair.

I guess if you donate sperm informally, like this guy did on Craig's list, there's no way to prove what your agreement was—so you're not protected from the mom's claim down the road.

It's not like the mom is offering parental rights to him and in return, expecting payment. She just wants his money.

I don't think she should get it.

I wonder what the real story is, about their relationship—the mechanic, the women, and his wife, what was her role? Sounds like a good screenplay.

He was the state Attorney General. I don't think it was his jurisdiction to bring charges. I think it was the city/county DA that has jurisdiction and if I remember correctly that asshat investigated Sandusky long before the story broke and decided not to file charges.....until shit hit the fan in the media....Penn State has a long arm and as was pointed out BIG TIME BUCKS for football.

I'm sure there is much more to this story than Rueters/Yahoo is posting in this report. The feminist in me fears the worst. Also, as someone who watches poor women's rights get trampled on, I guess I just wonder what worker at the Kansas Department of Children and Families gave this story to the press, and if that was legal. I assume they are poor because Medicaid must have been involved at the birth if they have a $6K bill, and need more help now. Aren't there privacy laws? Who benefits from selling this sad story.
I haven't seen a photo, but if she is a woman of color... Well we all know where this is headed.

They also make sure to mention the donor's working class job.

I also assume there was an agreement (that will be produced in court, but not reported by Yahoo) because they must have had the guy tested for HIV and other diseases before using the sperm.

And if there was no agreement and this poor women just put untested fluids into her body, then she might have mental/emotional problems (which should remain as private as any medical condition should). This is the kind of lurid "look at what stupid poor women do" that Jerry Springer and his ilk have made millions on.

I'm with the NCLR on this: let's apply the law fairly.

Besides the agency's role, I'm not seeing enough to assume the mom is a victim, either of the guy who sold her the sperm or the agency hoping to facilitate her receipt of payment from him (it's clear they're behind it; I SO agree with you on that one). For all we know, she might be a very savvy woman making choices based on careful consideration of facts. But yeah, there's a lot left out and maybe we'll see it unfold!

Neither mother sought financial support from the sperm donor. They all signed an agreement releasing the sperm donor from all rights and responsibilities for the future baby. Since it costs many thousands of dollars to obtain sperm from a sperm bank, I assume the mothers used Craigslist because they couldn't afford to use the state sanctioned method.

The state of Kansas is behind this idiocy, and I have no suspicions that either mother is working some savvy angle to get paid. The biological mother sought public assistance after the couple split up. Clearly, the non-biological mother should be tapped for child support, not the sperm donor.

If I have a kid, it will not be through an expensive sperm bank but some sort of similar agreement. I don't trust Texas judges to honor such an agreement, so the "father" would be left blank on the birth certificate and and the state will never be informed of the donor's name.

...
 

I,m thinking the "2" women who entered into this .....both of them should be responsible.

Kansas is a bit out there in this quest.... no offense to those that live there.

It also shows whats been happening in this sorry economy,folks/govt has been pulling out all stops and making some piss poor decisions in the name of saving/bringing in money!

Yes, I see what you mean.

It would be good if you could also verify he isn't HIV positive or whatever health things matter to you.

I would do a background check on him, too, but that's just me.

And I think your instinct not to trust a Texas judge is a good one...

Maybe talk to some expert? Not a lawyer, that would probably cost, but maybe someone who works in a clinic or something?

I don't know. This is all just off the top of my head.

Just saying the benefit of a sperm bank is the screening they do of the donors. Assuming they do...

I remember meeting these two women for dinner, I was with my partner at the time, and the women wanted a baby. They had a FedEx package with them, containing sperm from a bank in California.

I never had a strong urge to perpetuate my genetic material, not that there's anything wrong with that, so I never thought about sperm banks. There were times in my life I would have adopted, though. Especially an older kid.

Off topic. sorry. But breaking news is kind of a discussion starter, I think.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...6pLid%3D251993

William Marotta, Kansas Sperm Donor To Lesbian Couple, Fighting Child Support Payments
By JOHN HANNA 01/02/13 10:51 PM ET EST



TOPEKA, Kan. — A Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple after answering an online ad is fighting the state's efforts to suddenly force him to pay child support for the now 3-year-old girl, arguing that he and the women signed an agreement waiving all of his parental rights.

The case hinges on the fact that no doctors were used for the artificial insemination. The state argues that because William Marotta didn't work through a clinic or doctor, as required by state law, he can be held responsible for about $6,000 that the child's biological mother received through public assistance – as well as future child support.

At least 10 other states have similar requirements in their laws, including California, Illinois and Missouri, the Kansas Department of Children and Families argued in a prepared court documents it gave to The Associated Press late Wednesday.

Department spokeswoman Angela de Rocha said that when a single mother seeks benefits for a child, it's routine for the department to try to determine the child's paternity and require the father to make support payments to lessen the potential cost to taxpayers.

Marotta, a 46-year-old Topeka resident, answered an ad on Craigslist in 2009 from a local couple, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, who said they were seeking a sperm donor. After exchanging emails and meeting, the three signed an agreement relieving Marotta of any financial or paternal responsibility.

But the Kansas Department for Children and Families argues the agreement isn't valid, because instead of working with a doctor, Marotta agreed to drop off containers with his sperm at the couple's home, according to documents faxed to the Shawnee County District Court late Wednesday and provided to the AP.

The women handled the artificial insemination themselves using a syringe, and Schreiner eventually became pregnant, according to the documents.

Late last year, after she and Bauer broke up, Schreiner received public assistance from the state to help care for the girl.

"My ex-partner and I wanted to have a baby," Schreiner said in a written statement to the department in January 2012, also included in the department's latest filing. "We were a gay couple so we had a sperm donor."


In October, the department filed a court petition against Marotta, asking that he be required to reimburse the state for the benefits and make future child support payments. Marotta is asking that the case be dismissed, arguing that he's not legally the child's father, only a sperm donor. A hearing is set for Tuesday.

Marotta told The Topeka-Capital Journal that he is "a little scared about where this is going to go, primarily for financial reasons."

His attorney didn't immediately return a phone message Wednesday from The Associated Press, and there was no listing for his home phone number in Topeka. Listings for Schreiner and Bauer were either incorrect or out of service, and Schreiner did not respond to a message sent by Facebook.

The agreement signed by Marotta, Schreiner and Bauer in March 2009, said the women "hold him harmless" financially. The agreement also said the child's birth certificate would not list a father.

Under a 1994 Kansas law, a sperm donor isn't considered the father only when a donor provides sperm to a licensed physician for artificial insemination of a woman who isn't the donor's wife. The result is an incentive for donors and prospective mothers to work with a doctor, de Rocha said.

"I believe that is the intent of the law, so that we don't end up with these ambiguous situations," she told the AP.

Also, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in October 2007 that a sperm donor who works through a licensed physician can't legally be considered a child's father – and doesn't have the right to visit the child or have a role in its upbringing – absent a formal, written agreement. But the case involved a sperm donor who was seeking access to a child but had only an informal, unwritten agreement with the child's mother.

Linda Elrod, a law professor and director of Washburn University's Children and Family Law program, said the law seems clear: Sperm donors who don't want to be held liable for child support need to work with a doctor.

"Other than that, the general rule is strict liability for sperm," said Elrod, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court case.

____

Thanks, Cheryl, that fills some of the gaps.

Hi, Kobi. You wrote:

"The comments suggesting an ulterior motive on the part of the biological mother and what seems to be a willingness to excuse the sperm donor feels misogynistic to me."

Now I see that the mom isn't behind the suit, it's the state agency (I still don't understand how it's "mysoginistic" of the state to file the suit, but I'll listen and stay open to that—maybe I'll change my mind when I hear more).

It appears the agency feels it has a legal wedge created by ambiguity in the law, and it's going to use it. Maybe the legislation will change to prevent it happening in the future.

Regarding the second part of what you wrote, I don't see how it's "mysoginistic" to "excuse" the donor from having to pay child support for a child he agreed to help create with $50-worth of sperm, no strings attached on either side, all parties on board with that.

(Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote?)

Assuming I didn't, all I can say is, I'll stay open and maybe when there's more information, I'll change my mind on that one.

And it doesn't matter.

Tuesday, the courts decide without our input :(

Yeah, you're right! Good questions. Who knows.

January-03-13

House Lets Violence Against Women Act Expire

The House of Representatives let the Senate-approved bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) expire at the end of the 112th congressional session without ever seeing a vote. This is the first time VAWA has not been reauthorized since it was first passed in 1994.

The Senate approved the reauthorization of VAWA in April 2012 and included new provisions that would extend access to law enforcement and services for Native American women, better access for immigrant women who fear deportation if they report violence, and better access for LGBT victims.

The House drafted a second version of VAWA that excluded these new protections, the Cantor/Adams VAWA. The House passed the Cantor/Adams version of the bill, which was the first time a draft of VAWA had been approved by either chamber that narrowed or restricted protections.

Without approval by both the Senate and the House, the process of reauthorizing VAWA must start over with the new congressional session.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) was one of the key sponsors of the bill in the Senate, and plans to reintroduce the bill in 2013. She issued the following statement regarding the failure of the House to reauthorize the bill, "The House Republican leadership's failure to take up and pass the Senate's bipartisan and inclusive VAWA bill is inexcusable. ...No matter how broad the bipartisan support, no matter who gets hurt in the process, the politics of the right wing of their party always comes first."

"I think they are still so kowtowing to the extreme on the right that they're not even listening to the moderates, and particularly the women, in their caucus who are saying they support this," Senator Murray told the Huffington Post.

In the almost 18 years since VAWA was initially passed, millions have benefited from its provisions. Between 1993 and 2010, the rate of intimate partner violence declined by 67%. VAWA established the National Domestic Violence Hotline, which receives over 22,000 calls each month and VAWA funds train over 500,000 law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, and other personnel each year.

Media Resources: Guardian 1/2/2013; Huffington Post 1/2/2013; MSNBC 1/2/2013; Feminist Newswire 5/17/2012, 4/26/12

January-03-13

Domino's Pizza Founder Wins Injunction Against ACA

Tom Monaghan, founder of the Domino's Pizza franchise, was awarded a temporary restraining order by a federal judge on Sunday against the provision under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires employers to provide birth control coverage.

Federal Judge Lawrence Zatkoff, who issued the temporary restraining order while Monaghan's lawsuit against the federal government is pending, supported his decision by claiming that Monaghan had "shown that abiding by the mandate will substantially burden his exercise of religion."

Monaghan, who is devout Catholic, filed a lawsuit against the federal government over the mandate requiring employers to provide coverage for contraception. Monaghan argued that contraception is not healthcare but a "gravely immoral" practice. His is among 11 other lawsuits pending against the federal government on contraception access.

Monaghan sold Domino's Pizza to Bain Capital in 1998, but is still owner of Domino's Farms Corp., a land management company in Michigan.

Media Resources: CNN 12/31/2012; Huffington Post 12/31/2012; Detroit News 1/1/2013



Birth control is "immoral"? This sickens me. This and the attack on Planned Parenthood in Texas, a ruling today leaving 50,000 women without a way to get inexpensive pap smears and other types of "well care."

Kobi wrote:

"In referring to the donor, this is a little more complicated to explain. There was a legal method for him to protect himself. Ignorance of the law, attempting to circumvent the law, and failing to protect oneself does not and should not exempt one from the consequences of their actions. A private contract still needs to conform to and adhere to current and prevailing state law. Failing to do so, implies acceptance for the potential for unintended consequences. As such, to my way of thinking, the donor is not an "innocent victim" here."


Okay, well we see it really differently. But I'm listening to you.

Actually, if I had to assign a percentage, I'd say we agree about 80% of the time.

That's pretty high, don't you think?

It's much more interesting when there's a little friction, a little spark, than constantly getting nods of approval, which never makes me articulate something and think deeper.

And I love responsible argument. Back in the day, I taught Logic & Rhetoric to college freshmen. I even tried to get work as a tutor to people trying to get their kids into tough schools and posted a flyer that said, "Your teenager knows how to argue. But can she write an argumentative essay?"

I thought I was really going to rake it in, charge those rich kids' parents through the nose for my services.

Didn't get a single call.

But I did love being in a classroom. I taught a semester at GWU, the semester of 9/11, and I have never seen more impassioned political writing than what those kids cranked out. I also found that the more I protected the conservative students who were getting bashed in class, the more liberal they became. I didn't intervene a lot except to keep it fair. As much as I could, and they started to sound like me, asking each other, What's your evidence? Then discussing if it's valid evidence.

I just had an awful fight with my sister today. A fight about something in the news. She adores a prison warden renown in his state for making the prisoners sleep in tents, not providing air conditioning in 128 degree heat, not allowing exercise, or GED classes. I was stunned that he was her "hero." It broke my heart.

I tried to write to her about it, and it enraged her. I kept looking at my tactics, thinking I had been even, I had been fair, but I just kept pissing her off more. I was stunned she wasn't more like the people on here. At least we try to be respectful in our disagreements and are careful to back up our claims. I was sad that I couldn't have with her, what I have on here. I'm still sad. I wish I hadn't challenged her.

Oh well. Back to breaking news.

I've read several articles so far, so I'm not perfectly sure where I read that the donor said he never even took the $50 offered for his services. He thought he was helping out a couple who wanted to have a baby. It's probably not relevant, but that article also said that he and his wife are childless, but have raised one foster child.

The child in this case is now three years old. The mothers most likely contacted the sperm donor at least four years ago. A lot has happened in that time that could have caused a family to seek public assistance, like a huge recession and the foreclosure crisis. It's really unfair to suspect that the mothers knew they couldn't support the child when they conceived. And, I'm sorry to say, jumping to that conclusion about a woman who has now become a welfare mother has an odour of misogyny to it. In my opinion, it's a little classist, too. Sometimes people fall on hard times and they need to go on welfare. It's not our place to judge.

It's unclear whether the biological mother sought public assistance before the couple split up. If, as one article inferred, the request for assistance came post split, there's no difference between her and any other woman left alone to take care of her child/ren after the husband/partner leaves. This is one of the biggest reasons why we have public assistance- So that children hopefully won't starve or freeze to death if their parents don't stay together.

Speaking of going on welfare, I don't know anything about how it works in Kansas, but if they're pursuing sperm donors to recover assistance grants to women with children, I'm going to feel safe assuming that Kansas requires welfare mothers to jump through a bunch of hoops in order to receive a grant. Breathless wants to know how the state of Kansas came to know the donor's identity. If a social worker questions a woman closely she could easily give up that information inadvertently. She might even have simply let it slip that the man was known to her, at which point the social worker might be required by state law to with hold the grant until she disclosed his name.

As for expecting the participants in this mess to know and abide by the law re:sperm banks and doctors, it's not something I would have known about. It's not strange to me that these people wouldn't have known, either. What's more, there have been cases in the past where single lesbians and lesbian couples have been denied access to private sperm banks. Those cases were in the midwest and bible belt, so it's possible that these women might have been turned away from legal avenues in Kansas even if they were wealthy enough to access them. Why is it OK for Melissa Etheredge to collect sperm from her buddy Steven Stills so her wife could make a baby, (or was it Graham Nash?), and not OK for two non-celebrity women to circumvent the sperm bank?

There are many potential victims if the sperm donor is tapped for child support. Every lesbian and gay family with children will be victimised and further marginalised if the court refuses to recognise the non-biological mother as the parent who they should be tapping for support. A decision recognising a sperm donor as the parent over the mother would further erode the status of all lgbt families in Kansas with one biological parent and one non-bio parent.

Yeah, it's sad, Breathless. However you look at it, it's a hard time for families.

Sworn Virgins
 

This is infuriating to me
 

I understand your frustration. This is yet another example of the reality of queer phobia. You know as an activist this double speak has been going on for generations. This particular incident is the Army leadership showing their true colors. The Marines had a similar situation going on but the Marines chose to stop playing games and do the right thing.

It's ironic to me that the Marine Corps......the last bastion of the manly man.....would insist that all married soldiers be treated the same and have all services sponsored by the Corp available to all Marine families.

The Corps was the one everybody thought would have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this new (to the US) military world. Instead it's the Army that are assholes.

The Corp is providing the leadership needed to do this. The commanders got their orders and they are obeying them.....actually they are more than obeying orders...they are insisting that all soldiers and their families be treated equally.

Simper Fi to the Corps

Russia
 

Levada polls conducted last year show that almost two thirds of Russians find homosexuality "morally unacceptable and worth condemning." About half are against gay rallies and same-sex marriage; almost a third think homosexuality is the result of "a sickness or a psychological trauma," the Levada surveys show.
Russia's widespread hostility to homosexuality is shared by the political and religious elite.

Lawmakers have accused gays of decreasing Russia's already low birth rates and said they should be barred from government jobs, undergo forced medical treatment or be exiled.

Lucky 11
 

Don't even get me going on this one. Our military lets them serve, knowing they are undocumented or their temporary documentation will expire while they are enlisted. Then after they have served honorably, deport them? I am pretty sure many fellow Americans do not know of this and will not believe it really does happen. Most that have served and are being deported are Latino/a.

So discouraging to hear. At one time, enlisting was a way of ensuring citizenship. At least I remember that to be true when they were trying to recruit people to invade Iraq. That was ten years ago, though.

It's just they are brown. Canadians (and other Anglos) serve in our military and get citizenship (dual) with no problem.

Follow up to Kansas vs the sperm donor
 

A sperm donor has been ordered to pay child support for the biological daughter he fathered to a lesbian couple who found him via Craigslist.

Angela Bauer, 40, and partner Jennifer Schreiner, 34, placed an ad on the site three years ago for a donor which was answered by William Marotta.

Mr Marotta provided sperm which was used for artificial insemination by Ms Schreiner. In return, he gave up parental rights including financial duties for the child.

The three signed a legal document which stated Mr Marotta, a married mechanic who fosters children with his wife, would have no rights to the child.

The arrangement changed earlier this year when Ms Schreiner, the only parent registered on her daughter's birth certificate, applied for social welfare.

Ms Bauer had been supporting the child but was left unable to work due to ill health.

On October 3, 2012, attorney Mark McMillan filed a petition on behalf of the Department of Children and Families seeking a ruling that Marotta is the father of Schreiner's child and owes a duty to support her.

It said the department provided cash assistance totaling $189 for the girl for July through September 2012, and had paid medical expenses totaling nearly $6,000.

Schreiner had allegedly been put under pressure to reveal Mr Marotta's name so that her daughter could continue to have health care.

The legal agreement that the three made in 2009 was deemed invalid by Kansas state because they did not use a certified doctor for the insemination.

Hannah Schroller, Mr Marotta's attorney, argued that the case was consistent with a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court denied parental rights to a man who sought them after providing a sperm donation under similar circumstances.

A licensed physician performed the insemination in the 2007 case.
Schroller wrote that Marotta took the same actions as the man in the 2007 case did, and he - like that man - should be considered a sperm donor, not a father.

She stressed that sperm banks regularly ship donations for the intended purpose of artificial insemination within the United States and abroad to both residential and medical facility addresses.

Schroller argued in court documents that if a donor is free of parental responsibility only when a doctor performs an insemination, 'then any woman in Kansas could have sperm donations shipped to her house, inseminate herself without a licensed physician and seek out the donor for financial support because her actions made him a father, not a sperm donor.

'This goes against the very purpose of the statute to protect sperm donors as well as birth mothers'.

Ms Bauer and Ms Schreiner had been together for eight years and adopted eight children. They ended their relationship in 2010 but continue to co-parent their sons and daughters who range from three months to 25 years old.

The state of Kansas does not recognize same-sex unions, so each of their children was registered for adoption by a single parent.

A motion to dismiss the state's case will be heard in Shawnee County District Court on January 8.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hts-child.html

---------------------------------------

The evidentiary hearing in the sperm donor case in Shawnee County District Court has been postponed from Tuesday to April. Oral arguments will be heard in June.

Voice actor for Charlie Brown arrested in Calif.

The Associated Press
Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013 - 7:21 am

SAN DIEGO -- Authorities in California say the voice actor who portrayed Charlie Brown in many "Peanuts" shows was arrested on charges that include stalking.

Robbins was the voice of Charlie Brown for TV specials, "A Charlie Brown Christmas" and "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown."
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/23/513...k=omni_popular


Looks like it is time for Peppermint Patty to step in and top Charlie Brown, again.

Breaking news.
 

U.S. military opening combat positions to women. No shit.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/0...jobs-to-women/

I'm almost inclined to think this is a big enough deal to deserve its own thread, but I may just have strong feelings on the issue.