Breaking News Events - Page 145

Ginger · 01-03-2013, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobi

KANSAS CITY, Kansas (Reuters) - A Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple so they could have a child said on Wednesday he is shocked the state is now trying to make him pay child support.

William Marotta, 46, donated sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and Angela Bauer under a written agreement that he would not be considered the father of the child nor liable for child support. A daughter, now 3, was born to Schreiner.

But in October, the state of Kansas filed a petition seeking to have Marotta declared the father of the child and financially responsible for her after the couple encountered money difficulties.

Marotta will ask the court in a hearing January 8 to dismiss the claim, which centers on a state law that the sperm must be donated through a licensed physician in order for the father to be free of any later financial obligations. Marotta gave a container of semen to the couple, who found him on Craigslist, instead of donating through a doctor or clinic.

The case is seen as having repercussions for other sperm donors. Sperm banks routinely provide sperm to people who want to conceive a child on the understanding that the donors are not responsible for the children.

Kansas is seeking child support from Marotta, including about $6,000 in medical expenses related to the child's birth, according to its petition.

The case has attracted national attention. Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said Wednesday "it is unfortunate and unfair" that Kansas is seeking money from a sperm donor.

"It certainly might have a negative effect on other men's willingness to help couples who need a donor, which would be harmful to everyone," Minter said.

"I also think it undermines everyone's respect for the law when you see it operate so arbitrarily."

Kansas officials are required under the law to determine the father of a child when someone seeks state benefits, said Angela de Rocha, spokeswoman for the Department for Children and Families. The couple was compelled to provide that information, which led to investigation of the sperm donation.

Marotta should be declared the father and subject to financial claims because he donated the sperm directly to the women and not through a physician, as required by Kansas law, the state's petition states.

Lawyers for Marotta argue that he had no parental rights because of his agreement with the couple and cannot be held financially responsible.

They cite a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against a sperm donor seeking parental rights because he did not have any such agreement with the mother, lawyers for Marotta said.

"So now, we are flipping the argument around," Marotta attorney Ben Swinnen said Wednesday.

If the father had no legal parental rights in the 2007 case, Marotta should be declared to have no parental obligations in the current case, Swinnen said.

Marotta, a race car mechanic, responded to an ad on Craigslist from someone offering to pay $50 for sperm donations, but he made the donation for free. Marotta said he and his wife have no children of their own but have fostered a daughter. Marotta said he was simply trying to help a couple wanting a child.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/child-suppo...014725388.html

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.

Kobi · 01-03-2013, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IslandScout

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.

If I read the story correctly, she applied for benefits from the state. The state always checks to see if there is an identifiable father they can recoup monies from.

The craigslist thing sounds a bit bizarre tho. Probably a lot more to the story that I dont want to know about. LOL.

Corkey · 01-03-2013, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobi

(Reuters) - Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett filed a lawsuit on Wednesday demanding that sanctions imposed on Penn State University over the Jerry Sandusky sex scandal be thrown out, saying they threatened to devastate the state's economy.

Corbett called the sanctions imposed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, or NCAA, which include an unprecedented $60 million fine, "overreaching and unlawful."

"I cannot and will not stand by and let it happen without a fight," the Republican governor, who was accused of dragging his feet on the Penn State scandal when he was state attorney general, told a news conference.

A lawsuit Corbett filed with U.S. District Court in Harrisburg called for all Sandusky-related sanctions imposed on Penn State to be thrown out.

Corbett's suit charged the NCAA and "competing colleges and universities represented on its governing boards" had "cynically and hypocritically exploited" the case "to impose crippling and unprecedented sanctions on an already weakened competitor."

The suit said stigma from the case would diminish recruitment of students and student athletes and the value of a Penn State education for decades.

According to Corbett's office, Penn State football was the second most profitable collegiate athletic program in the United States in 2010-11, when it brought in $50 million, generating more than $5 million in tax revenue.

Penn State University released a statement saying it was not party to Corbett's lawsuit and reiterated its commitment to comply with the NCAA sanctions. The university recently made the first payment of $12 million of the fine to a national fund to support victims of child abuse.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/governor-su...8396--nfl.html

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

This has got to be one of the strangest attempts to recoup lost tax revenue known to humankind.

Corbett was the DA who failed to bring charges against Sanduskey. Can we say covering his ass???

Toughy · 01-03-2013, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corkey

Corbett was the DA who failed to bring charges against Sanduskey. Can we say covering his ass???

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.

dykeumentary · 01-03-2013, 06:08 PM

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.

Ginger · 01-03-2013, 07:10 PM

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!

CherylNYC · 01-04-2013, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IslandScout

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.

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.

Nat · 01-04-2013, 02:06 AM

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.

firegal · 01-04-2013, 02:14 AM

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!

Ginger · 01-04-2013, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

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.

Yes, I see what you mean.

Ginger · 01-04-2013, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nat

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.

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.

Kobi · 01-04-2013, 10:03 AM

I wish I knew how to multi-quote. Would make this easier.

Others seem to be seeing things in this article on the sperm donor that I dont.

I dont see anything about the lesbian couple breaking up or seeking state assistance because of a break up. It says. " in October, the state of Kansas filed a petition seeking to have Marotta declared the father of the child and financially responsible for her after the couple encountered money difficulties."

Every state has rules and regulations which govern the circumstances under which anyone can receive taxpayer aid. Each state exercises its own judgement as to how to pursue other potential avenues of support as a condition for assistance. Whether I like this or not is a moot point.

People applying for state assistance can sometimes be put between a rock and a hard place. You want assistance, you jump thu the hoops. If you dont jump thru the hoops, assistance is denied. Clearly, a difficult position to be in.

The law in Kansas is very clear. Use a sperm bank and the donor is protected. Dont use a sperm bank and you open yourself up to potential problems. Again, one doesnt have to agree with it.

I find it very odd that anyone would use Craigslist to find a sperm donor. I find it odder that anyone would actually answer such an ad.

I doubt if one can only afford 50 bucks for sperm, the likelihood that one can afford to have the donor tested for potential dieases and genetic problems, do a background check, and the other things one might want to know about, is slim to none.

I suspect if you cant afford the above, it is highly unlikely anyone consulted an attorney to be advised of the potential pitfalls in a private contract given the prevailing law or used an attorney to draw up the paperwork.

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.

The entire story is odd to me. Then again, people never cease to amaze me.

CherylNYC · 01-04-2013, 12:21 PM

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.

____

Ginger · 01-04-2013, 01:40 PM

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

Breathless · 01-04-2013, 01:50 PM

Personally, I dont think he should be held responsible for support. My question is tho, and it comes from a suspicious place, if the mothers were not required to list a father on the birth certificate, and he was nothing more than a donor, how does the state know who the donor is? Who released that little tidbit of information? And what was the purpose? I feel there is a major part of this story missing. Did social services send a letter of demand of support to the other mother? And why the hell is she not standing up and assisting with the raising and financial needs of her child???

Ginger · 01-04-2013, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Breathless

Personally, I dont think he should be held responsible for support. My question is tho, and it comes from a suspicious place, if the mothers were not required to list a father on the birth certificate, and he was nothing more than a donor, how does the state know who the donor is? Who released that little tidbit of information? And what was the purpose? I feel there is a major part of this story missing. Did social services send a letter of demand of support to the other mother? And why the hell is she not standing up and assisting with the raising and financial needs of her child???

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

Ginger · 01-04-2013, 02:18 PM

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

Ginger · 01-04-2013, 02:24 PM

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 · 01-04-2013, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IslandScout

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

In referring to the almost misogynistic comments, I wasnt referring to the article. I was referring to the comments on the article questioning the motives of the biological mother. Presumptions were made or inferred about the woman.

It was very clear in the original article that the suit was brought by the state not the mother.

We also have no idea what the financial agreement or input is for the non-biological mother. The fact that the mother applied for state assistance implies neither mother had/has the financial resources to support a child at the time.

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.

The only "innocent victim" here is a 3 year old child in need of financial support.

Be interesting to see the results of this lawsuit.

Ginger · 01-04-2013, 02:49 PM

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.

01-04-2013, 02:06 AM	#2888
Nat Senior Member How Do You Identify?: bigender Preferred Pronoun?: whatevs Relationship Status: in a relationship Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tx Posts: 3,535 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 11,042 Thanked 13,963 Times in 2,589 Posts Rep Power: 21474855	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 a fountain of blood. In the shape of a girl. - Bjork What is to give light must endure burning. -Viktor Frankl

01-04-2013, 02:14 AM	#2889
firegal Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Butch Preferred Pronoun?: Don't let the gal part of my screen name fool ya I,m ALL butch! Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Tacoma,Washington Posts: 2,907 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 15,853 Thanked 11,705 Times in 2,469 Posts Rep Power: 21474853	... 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!

01-04-2013, 10:03 AM	#2892
Kobi Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Biological female. Lesbian. Relationship Status: Happy Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Hanging out in the Atlantic. Posts: 9,234 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 9,840 Thanked 34,653 Times in 7,652 Posts Rep Power: 21474861	I wish I knew how to multi-quote. Would make this easier. Others seem to be seeing things in this article on the sperm donor that I dont. I dont see anything about the lesbian couple breaking up or seeking state assistance because of a break up. It says. " in October, the state of Kansas filed a petition seeking to have Marotta declared the father of the child and financially responsible for her after the couple encountered money difficulties." Every state has rules and regulations which govern the circumstances under which anyone can receive taxpayer aid. Each state exercises its own judgement as to how to pursue other potential avenues of support as a condition for assistance. Whether I like this or not is a moot point. People applying for state assistance can sometimes be put between a rock and a hard place. You want assistance, you jump thu the hoops. If you dont jump thru the hoops, assistance is denied. Clearly, a difficult position to be in. The law in Kansas is very clear. Use a sperm bank and the donor is protected. Dont use a sperm bank and you open yourself up to potential problems. Again, one doesnt have to agree with it. I find it very odd that anyone would use Craigslist to find a sperm donor. I find it odder that anyone would actually answer such an ad. I doubt if one can only afford 50 bucks for sperm, the likelihood that one can afford to have the donor tested for potential dieases and genetic problems, do a background check, and the other things one might want to know about, is slim to none. I suspect if you cant afford the above, it is highly unlikely anyone consulted an attorney to be advised of the potential pitfalls in a private contract given the prevailing law or used an attorney to draw up the paperwork. 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. The entire story is odd to me. Then again, people never cease to amaze me. __________________

01-04-2013, 12:21 PM	#2893
CherylNYC Member How Do You Identify?: Stonefemme lesbian Preferred Pronoun?: I'm a woman. Behave accordingly. Relationship Status: Single, not looking. Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: NYC Posts: 1,467 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 9,474 Thanked 7,116 Times in 1,205 Posts Rep Power: 21474853	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. ____ __________________ Cheryl

01-04-2013, 01:50 PM	#2895
Breathless Brat Extraordinaire How Do You Identify?: Femme Preferred Pronoun?: She, her Relationship Status: Happy Tournaments Won: 23 Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Alberta Canada Posts: 1,412 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 7,549 Thanked 4,099 Times in 958 Posts Rep Power: 21474852	Personally, I dont think he should be held responsible for support. My question is tho, and it comes from a suspicious place, if the mothers were not required to list a father on the birth certificate, and he was nothing more than a donor, how does the state know who the donor is? Who released that little tidbit of information? And what was the purpose? I feel there is a major part of this story missing. Did social services send a letter of demand of support to the other mother? And why the hell is she not standing up and assisting with the raising and financial needs of her child??? __________________ *BE the change you wish to see in the world. Gandhi*

01-03-2013, 06:08 PM	#2885
dykeumentary Member How Do You Identify?: butch dyke Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: NJ Posts: 449 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 341 Thanked 1,548 Times in 359 Posts Rep Power: 19160663	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.

01-03-2013, 07:10 PM	#2886
Ginger Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Femme lesbian Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: East coast Posts: 2,416 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 5,829 Thanked 12,299 Times in 2,057 Posts Rep Power: 21474852	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!

01-04-2013, 01:40 PM	#2894
Ginger Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Femme lesbian Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: East coast Posts: 2,416 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 5,829 Thanked 12,299 Times in 2,057 Posts Rep Power: 21474852	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

01-04-2013, 02:18 PM	#2897
Ginger Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Femme lesbian Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: East coast Posts: 2,416 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 5,829 Thanked 12,299 Times in 2,057 Posts Rep Power: 21474852	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

01-04-2013, 02:24 PM	#2898
Ginger Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Femme lesbian Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: East coast Posts: 2,416 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 5,829 Thanked 12,299 Times in 2,057 Posts Rep Power: 21474852	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."

01-04-2013, 02:49 PM	#2900
Ginger Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Femme lesbian Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: East coast Posts: 2,416 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 5,829 Thanked 12,299 Times in 2,057 Posts Rep Power: 21474852	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.