I guess if lying works for the president and his Cabinet, why wouldn’t Republicans in lower ranks do it? Perhaps that’s what’s behind Tennessee state Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver’s (R) move to distract the public from the true impact of a new bill she’s sponsoring that will deem children conceived by artificial insemination “illegitimate.”
The bill HB 1406 aims to repeal statute TCA 68-3-306, which states "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." If you’re scratching your head about this bill, you’re not alone, but don’t look to state Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver to clear things up. She gives a weak “explanation“ that doesn’t really clarify what she’s up to at all.
This, of course, doesn’t help. What’s the Attorney General’s brief? For which lawsuit was it written? Just because an AG says something is unconstitutional, it doesn’t automatically make it so. Is that statute really unconstitutional? If so, why is it up to her to introduce law to repeal an unconstitutional statute while I’m sure others remain on the books?
You don’t have to look far to figure it out. Many LGBTQ couples use artificial insemination to grow their families and state Rep. Weaver (a self-proclaimed “true conservative who works for you”) doesn’t like that. Last year, she was one of 53 Republican politicians who teamed up with a Christian conservative group to butt themselves into the divorce proceedings between two women (talk about small government values).
State Rep. Weaver insists that “HB 1406 does not apply to same sex marriages at all!!!!“ but some research from Nashville Patch says differently (emphasis mine):
Weaver is correct in saying that TCA 36-2-304 does in fact show that the state presumes the father of a child is a married woman's husband, however, she is in error in her reference to State Attorney General Herbert Slatery's brief, filed in connection to a divorce case between two married women and the custody of the child born via artificial insemination.
Slatery filed a memorandum of law in the case which, actually, argues the statute Weaver's bill seeks to repeal is constitutional. The memorandum notes that in the United States Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges, the court ruled that state laws are "invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples," which would seemingly make the law unconstitutional, because it treats the male spouses of women different from female spouses. But the brief goes on to say another portion of state code requires words in the masculine gender include their feminine or neuter counterparts, except when "the contrary intention is manifest." The AG's brief notes that the purpose of the law Weaver seeks to repeal is to legitimize children born via artificial insemination and that replacing "husband" and "wife" with "spouse" does nothing to change that intent.
So there you go. State Rep. Weaver sponsored a discriminatory bill and her weak defense for it is completely based on lies. They must be hoping folks will get too confused to take her seriously, because her office is reportedly even lying to constituents. WMC News 5 reports:
One Tennessean posed the concern to Hensley regarding the bill specifying a husband and a wife. The Tennessean asked Hensley how the law would be applied to same sex couples if it specifies a husband and a wife.
"That's not an area that we are concerned about so I don't have an answer to that question," Hensley's office replied. "Senator Hensley’s bill does not add any words. It removes one statute and we have nothing to do with what’s already written. I can suggest you contact your legislator and ask them to sponsor legislation that would change the other statute that is not affected by this bill.
Well, we know that is complete bullshit since we know Weaver definitely has concern about the rights of same-sex couples. While some people might be fooled, experts see right through her facade. From The Seattle Times:
“Clearly, the legislative intention behind both these bills is to stop lesbian couples from having the same automatic recognition of their parent-child relationships that opposite-sex couples have,” Julia Tate-Keith, a Murfreesboro attorney specializing in adoption and surrogacy issues, said in a legal memo.
If state Rep. Weaver and her staff need to lie so much about this bill, there are clearly dark motives behind getting the legislation to move forward. I might have to go to her Facebook post and drop some facts in the comments section.