Skip to main content

The Topeka Capitol-Journal shows that Kansas is doing its best to be regressive, homophobic and showing that it is not "pro-life" in any way.

The Kansas Department of Children and Families is suing the sperm donor that helped a lesbian couple conceive a child and is doing so against the wishes of the former couple.

And this also shows why we need better health care reform:

The Topeka couple initially tried to obtain a specimen from a cryobank in Chicago, Bauer said, but ran into trouble with their family practitioner. The doctor refused to sign a release stating the couple capable of raising a child, she said.

“I think she was uncomfortable with the whole insemination,” Bauer said. “It was the weirdest interaction I’ve ever had with a health care professional.”

The couple then had to turn to Craigslist.   Frankly, couples should not run into these kinds of obstacles from health care professionals.
The couple was successful the first try, and a baby girl was born to them on Dec. 7, 2009, though only Schreiner’s name appears on the birth certificate. Kansas law doesn’t recognize same-sex unions.

The Kansas Department of Children and Families became aware of the situation because Schreiner had to file for Medicaid to secure health insurance for the girl. Bauer, who formerly was the breadwinner of the family, was diagnosed in March with a serious illness, rendering her incapable of working.

The women are throwing their support in Marotta’s corner, but Bauer worries how all this will affect her daughter, whom she described as “a well-adjusted beautiful girl” who is “loved immensely.”

Again, this underscores the need for more health care in this country and it also shows that DOMA and laws of those nature must be struck down.   Children should not be caught in the middle because a state is too bigoted to recognize a union between consenting adults and they should not suffer because people are yoked to their jobs to get health insurance.

It also seems like this is a transparent attempt by the state of Kansas and the homophobic parts of the Republican party to send a chilling message to potential sperm donors:   Better not donate to a LGBT couple, or we'll go after you and you'll incur a heavy financial penalty.  

6:24 PM PT:

The Huffington Post article begins with Kansas suing the sperm donor in exchange for providing health insurance to the daughter.   I read that first and it formed my disgust for this.   It does mention that some Republicans are aware that shit like this makes people want to move out of Kansas

Originally posted to pistolSO on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:10 PM PST.

Also republished by Milk Men And Women, LGBT Kos Community, and Invisible People.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  this guy may have been the donor but, (8+ / 0-)

    Kansas Dept of Children and Families and their Rupublican enablers in the legislature and governor's mansion are turly a bunch of jerk offs!

  •  Sure - The party of limited government (8+ / 0-)

    I guess that means that if you aren't what  people think of as a typical family in Kansas the government can limit your behavior. Their day of reckoning will come.

    -7.75, -8.10; Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Dave in Northridge on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:55:11 PM PST

  •  WHO is sueing WHOM for WHAT? (0+ / 0-)

    This is all so sick and depressing ...

    "This isn't America" - Zenkai Girl

    by mythatsme on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:25:11 PM PST

  •  I don't see how them being gay (6+ / 0-)

    has anything to do with it under the law. She's just a woman who used a sperm donor. Unless they are willing to sue sperm donors for every other woman in this situation, gay or straight, where do they have a legal hair to stand on here?

    •  Sounds about right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kscatlvr2001, sfbob

      They might be able to get away with this legally if they pursued every one in this situation.

      I guess Kansas simply considers her the same as every other single mom.

      If they are being picky, there is probably a civil rights suit in there.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      by twigg on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:23:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Legally, sperm donation is very specific. (4+ / 0-)

      There is no such thing as "informal donation", rather at that point it's just a unorthodox sex act. The state has the right to sue deadbeat fathers on behalf of the child in such cases, especially when the woman will be going on welfare to support the child.

      This is all very very standard, and something that feminists fully supported not even 20 years ago.

      •  The women signed a legal contract (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Karl Rover, decembersue

        releasing the sperm donor from all responsibility. He is not a "deadbeat father", he's a sperm donor.

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 04:41:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The woman can't (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          sign away a child's right to child support. This really matters when the mother seeks welfare benefits for the child.

          •  You are right (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chipoliwog, pistolSO

            the interest in question (medicaid payments etc) belongs to the state, not the individual.

            While Kansas is being, well, pissy to say the least, it's not legally out-of-bounds.  However, if they have not done this with respect to anyone else the state is aware of who has used a donor there may be an equal protection issue.

            If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

            by marykk on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:21:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  As I see it, they had two opportunities. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kscatlvr2001, marykk

              They could have solicited the "donation" through an agency that does these. At which point it really would have been a donation, and he would have no status as a biological father.

              But I'm guessing they didn't want to pay fees. I'm not very sympathetic to people whose excuse is "it cost too much".

              Then, they could have started adoption proceedings by the second lesbian, which would have required the man to relinquish his parental rights. We can assume that he'd be willing, given the circumstances. This would have the added benefit of making the other woman the child's "second mother".

              They did not do this either. I suspect rather strongly that the excuse is again "it costs too much".

              This isn't a story of the big bad evil state of Kansas screwing with people for shits and giggles, this is the case of dumbass Craigslist turkey baster sperm donations and people who willfully and foolishly ignored well-established law.

          •  really? clinics do this all the time. (0+ / 0-)

            if a legal contract is signed, what is the difference if it's between individuals or a clinic?

            And have you read the contract?

    •  Well, that's what's so (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      typically Republican about this whole situation.
      The women are no longer together, but because the state doesn't recognize the marriage/partnership, the one woman who is the natural mother of the child, can't sue her former partner for child support for this child.
      The mother has filed for Medicaid, so the state is suing the sperm donor for child support.
      So they're basically being hoist by their own petard. It would be delicious if it wasn't so stupid and borne from ignorance and bigotry.
       I don't know about legal standing though- I hope the court laughs in their face, but this is Kansas, after all.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 04:34:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Welcome to 2013 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cany, sfbob, skrekk, skohayes

    The year that sees extremists push an unpopular agenda and get themselves pushed further to the margins. Couldn't happen to a more disgusting bunch.

  •  I am a single mom (10+ / 0-)

    In Kansas.  My son was born in Wichita 18 and a half years ago.  His father hasn't been in our lives at all since I broke up with him when I was six months pregnant.  He's just one of those guys we were better off without.  It's only my good fortune that I asked him to go away, and he actually went away.

    When I was in college I approached SRS -- it's the same department as described in this article but the name changed a couple years ago -- about getting a medical card for my son.  I was told at that time that we were approved, but that the state would pursue his father for payment of benefits.  It didn't matter that there was a history of violence.  It didn't matter that I'd worked to specifically get the man out of my life.  It didn't matter that we hadn't heard from him in any way since my son was born (at the time I applied he was 3).

    Worse, once the state went after him for support, paternity would be established, he'd have visitation rights and visitation is not contingent on support.

    My son was never a Medicaid recipient.  I bit the bullet and bought an individual policy that covered only him.  This was in the mid-late '90s and the premium was about $70 a month.  I worked my 30+ hours a week and finished college.

    My point being, this is not a process that's happening just because this is a lesbian couple.  This is the process for all children on Medicaid in Kansas.

  •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kscatlvr2001, marykk, ScottDog

    Very poorly written diary.

    No mention of precisely why the man is being sued.

    In Kansas (and many other states) the man CANNOT refuse to support any child they conceive - no matter what the wishes of the mother.

    So Kansas is suing the man for support of the child that the state of Kansas has to lay out.

    Just as they would sue ANY man of any sexual orientation if they are proven to have fathered a child - the usual way or through IVF.

    Now, this practice may be many things - but it most certain is not directed solely at gays and lesbians. If it were, it would never withstand legal muster.

    Sadly, everything Communism said about itself was a lie. Even more sadly,, everything Communism said about Capitalism was the truth.

    by GayIthacan on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:33:04 AM PST

  •  I don't know about Kansas, but in Florida (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kscatlvr2001, marykk

    they go after child support from the father of a child, however he got to be the father...if the child goes on welfare (as in Medicaid.)
      The way to get around it is an absolutely positively confidential sperm bank.

    •  The Clinton defense (0+ / 0-)

      "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"  

      These people need to move to a more sane and liberal state that will recognize 2 persons of the same gender on a birth certificate as parents.

      --United Citizens defeated Citizens United...This time. --

      by chipoliwog on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:16:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't mean to be flip (0+ / 0-)

    but honestly, I'm aware of two children conceived by Turk. E. Baster.  

    That would tend to avoid the problem, although the donor would have to be known.

    If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

    by marykk on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:17:50 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site