Bob Marshall Watch...
Prohibition on the provision of certain intervening medical technology to unmarried women. No individual licensed by a health regulatory board shall assist with or perform any intervening medical technology, whether in vivo or in vitro, for or on an unmarried woman that completely or partially replaces sexual intercourse as the means of conception, including, but not limited to, artificial insemination by donor, cryopreservation of gametes and embryos, invitro fertilization, embryo transfer, gamete intrafallopian tube transfer, and low tubal ovum transfer. (HB 187, LIS)
While I'm not sure exactly where I stand on the issue, I am of the belief that these kinds of bills and laws are frivilous, as there are more important issues with which the GA needs to handle. Additionally, no matter which side one stands on the moral fence on this issue, where in the Constitution does it say "the government can interfere with the definition of family"?
I've heard "what role does the state have in marriage?" out of the same mouths that say "we need to define and protect families" and "red light cameras invade our privacy". Folks, I know it seems like you're consistent, but you need to wake up and take an honest look at your beliefs.
These types of laws are inherently discriminatory as they target a select few people so the rest of us can sleep easier. "Whew - I feel better now knowing that no unmarried woman's going to get pregnant. Night John Boy". As the poster on the Rebellion's blog noted, as typical of these types of laws, they could have unintended consequences: What if a soldier leaves his sperm, gets killed, and his widow wants to get pregnant?
My point is that these laws, while I may either appreciate their spirit, are often mean-spirited, ill-conceived, poorly-written, and once enacted are used in a wider capacity than intended. I'm not going to lose sleep over this as rarely these types of bills are passed. Plus, former Del. Dick Black, Marshall's cohort, is just that: former.
Another bill from Del. Marshall which I don't quite understand is this:
HB 197: Marriage licenses. Requires the parties contemplating marriage to choose one of two types of marriage license: a license with grounds for divorce or a license without grounds for divorce. A license with grounds for divorce requires the parties to prove either adultery, a felony conviction, or cruelty to be granted a divorce. A license without grounds for divorce allows the parties to get a divorce based on any grounds including living separate and apart for the requisite time currently allowed under the law.