• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Legislation you can't make up.

rockfox

Seasoned Member
Real Person*
Male
From the great state of Georgia....

2019-2020 Regular Session - HB 604
Law enforcement officers and agencies; certain males to report certain events; require
5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:
6 SECTION 1.
7 Chapter 1 of Title 35 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general
8 provisions relative to law enforcement officers and agencies, is amended by adding a new
9 Code section to read as follows:
10 "35-1-23.
11 Any male 55 years of age or older shall immediately report to the county sheriff or local
12 law enforcement agency when such male releases sperm from his testicles."

Apparently a House bill that passed which outlawed murder of a child in the womb after a heartbeat can be detected has triggered the feminists there. The sponsor is also threatening to pass a "testicular bill of rights" to do the following...
  • Obtain permission from their sex partner before they are able to get a prescription for Viagra or any erectile dysfunction medication.
  • Ban vasectomy procedures in Georgia, both in part or whole, with punitive measures for performing the procedure that are listed in HB 481.
  • Make it an “aggravated assault” crime for men to have sex without a condom.
  • Require DNA testing when a woman is 6 weeks and 1 day pregnant (to be performed before she is 8 weeks) to determine the father of the child and who shall IMMEDIATELY start paying child support.
  • A 24 hour “waiting period” for men to purchase any pornography or sex toys in the state of Georgia.
Although I don't think she's thought through bullet point 4 very well.

Yes you read that right...they think procreative sex is assault.
 
Somebody be loco me thinks....many somebodies.
 
Yeah, I saw that. Makes me think we should bring back this law from Dueteronomy while we're at it:

Deuteronomy 25: 11-12. When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draws near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him who strikes him, and puts forth her hand, and takes him by the secrets; then you shall cut off her hand, your eye shall have no pity.
 
Yeah, some of those old stories made some powerful points....
 
I was stationed in Georgia at Benning and Gordon. Went to Atlanta once never felt the need to return. When we went to the Georgia retreat my family wanted to know why I took the long way instead of going through Atlanta so on the return home we went through it stopped at a gas station long enough to see 2 fist fights, a fender-bender that resulted in a stabbing, get propositioned by a hooker whom I severely doubt was a woman, and had left before the police or ambulance got there. They have not questioned my navigation since.
 
Apparently Arizona is not much better. This is getting crazy now. Now all of a sudden babies matter.

Arizona woman can use fertilized embryos to get pregnant without ex's consent, court rules

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...t-ex-husbands-consent-ruby-torres/3205867002/

That page was censored about 10 sec after I loaded it; reloaded and gone. 404 now. All I caught was something to the effect of "the womans right to create a child with the fertilized embryo superseded the husbands..."

So it's not just embryos, but fertilized ones. So I guess that means the man will be on the hook for 18 years of child support when she pops out sextuplets.

Reminds me of the judges who require male victims of convicted rapists to pay child support.
 
Arizona woman can use fertilized embryos to get pregnant without ex's consent, court rules

Arizona woman gives warning about in vitro fertilization
Before undergoing treatment for breast cancer, Ruby Torres and her then-fiancé agreed in July 2014 to complete in vitro fertilization, a process that created seven frozen embryos. Torres warns women about the process. Tom Tingle/azcentral.com

A Phoenix woman can try to get pregnant using fertilized embryos without the consent of her ex-husband, who would become a father, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled.

In a 2-1 decision, the court found that Ruby Torres' right to procreate outweighs her ex-husband John Terrell's interest not to — a decision that leaned heavily on the couple's reasoning for preserving the embryos.

The court acknowledged its decision could make Terrell financially responsible for the child.

Torres, who is now 38, and Terrell preserved embryos in 2014 after she was diagnosed with bilateral breast cancer and an oncologist said she likely couldn't bear children after chemotherapy.

The couple, who was dating at the time, agreed to preserve her embryos so she could get pregnant if she survived cancer. They married and later divorced.

Torres, an attorney, testified that she wants to implant the embryos when, and if, she is remarried.


During their divorce, Terrell asked the Maricopa County Superior Court to prevent Torres from becoming pregnant with the embryos. The court ruled that the embryos must be donated to a third party.

But the appeals court overturned that ruling in a decision handed down March 14.

"The trial court erred when it placed heavy weight on the parties’ inability to 'co-parent,'" wrote Judge Jennifer B. Campbell. "Nothing in the record suggests that either of them expected or intended to co-parent any offspring derived from the embryos."

She wrote that the couple agreed to preserve embryos to protect Torres' fertility, not necessarily to have children together in the future.

According to court documents, Terrell originally declined when Torres asked him to donate sperm to fertilize her eggs. He changed his mind after she planned to use a prior boyfriend's sperm.

Terrell could appeal the decision to the Arizona Supreme Court. His attorney didn't respond to a request for comment.

Judge Maria Elena Cruz wrote the dissenting opinion. She emphasized that the couple signed a contract in 2014 agreeing to not use the embryos without mutual consent.

The agreement, signed at a fertility clinic, states that in the case of divorce or separation the embryos "cannot be used to create a pregnancy without the express, written consent of both parties, even if donor gametes were used to create the embryos."

Cruz criticized the majority of the court's ruling, stating it was explicitly prohibited by the contract. She said the lower court's decision should have been affirmed.

"Do contracts matter?" she wrote. "I believe they do."


The case might seem like a unique circumstance, but Arizona legislators took up the debate last year and passed a law motivated by Torres' case.

State law now requires that viable embryos from a divorced couple be awarded to the parent who will allow a child to be born. It also states the other parent has no rights or obligations.

Campbell wrote that the law wasn't a factor in the ruling because it didn't exist at the time of the trial court decision.

And because that state law isn't applicable in this case, Terrell could end up having to pay child support if Torres gives birth to a child. Torres testified that Terrell could decide if he wants to be involved in the child's life.

"It is, of course, true that if Torres were awarded the embryos, Terrell could be legally responsible to financially support the children," the ruling states. "That reality is the same today as it was when the parties executed the (in vitro fertilization) agreement nearly four years ago."

Reach the reporter at dustin.gardiner@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-2471. Follow him on Twitter: @dustingardiner.
Dig Deeper
Top news headlines
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Glad to hear the AZ legislature made a just law to prevent such things from happening in the future.
 
Arizona woman can use fertilized embryos to get pregnant without ex's consent, court rules

Arizona woman gives warning about in vitro fertilization
Before undergoing treatment for breast cancer, Ruby Torres and her then-fiancé agreed in July 2014 to complete in vitro fertilization, a process that created seven frozen embryos. Torres warns women about the process. Tom Tingle/azcentral.com

A Phoenix woman can try to get pregnant using fertilized embryos without the consent of her ex-husband, who would become a father, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled.

In a 2-1 decision, the court found that Ruby Torres' right to procreate outweighs her ex-husband John Terrell's interest not to — a decision that leaned heavily on the couple's reasoning for preserving the embryos.

The court acknowledged its decision could make Terrell financially responsible for the child.

Torres, who is now 38, and Terrell preserved embryos in 2014 after she was diagnosed with bilateral breast cancer and an oncologist said she likely couldn't bear children after chemotherapy.

The couple, who was dating at the time, agreed to preserve her embryos so she could get pregnant if she survived cancer. They married and later divorced.

Torres, an attorney, testified that she wants to implant the embryos when, and if, she is remarried.


During their divorce, Terrell asked the Maricopa County Superior Court to prevent Torres from becoming pregnant with the embryos. The court ruled that the embryos must be donated to a third party.

But the appeals court overturned that ruling in a decision handed down March 14.

"The trial court erred when it placed heavy weight on the parties’ inability to 'co-parent,'" wrote Judge Jennifer B. Campbell. "Nothing in the record suggests that either of them expected or intended to co-parent any offspring derived from the embryos."

She wrote that the couple agreed to preserve embryos to protect Torres' fertility, not necessarily to have children together in the future.

According to court documents, Terrell originally declined when Torres asked him to donate sperm to fertilize her eggs. He changed his mind after she planned to use a prior boyfriend's sperm.

Terrell could appeal the decision to the Arizona Supreme Court. His attorney didn't respond to a request for comment.

Judge Maria Elena Cruz wrote the dissenting opinion. She emphasized that the couple signed a contract in 2014 agreeing to not use the embryos without mutual consent.

The agreement, signed at a fertility clinic, states that in the case of divorce or separation the embryos "cannot be used to create a pregnancy without the express, written consent of both parties, even if donor gametes were used to create the embryos."

Cruz criticized the majority of the court's ruling, stating it was explicitly prohibited by the contract. She said the lower court's decision should have been affirmed.

"Do contracts matter?" she wrote. "I believe they do."


The case might seem like a unique circumstance, but Arizona legislators took up the debate last year and passed a law motivated by Torres' case.

State law now requires that viable embryos from a divorced couple be awarded to the parent who will allow a child to be born. It also states the other parent has no rights or obligations.

Campbell wrote that the law wasn't a factor in the ruling because it didn't exist at the time of the trial court decision.

And because that state law isn't applicable in this case, Terrell could end up having to pay child support if Torres gives birth to a child. Torres testified that Terrell could decide if he wants to be involved in the child's life.

"It is, of course, true that if Torres were awarded the embryos, Terrell could be legally responsible to financially support the children," the ruling states. "That reality is the same today as it was when the parties executed the (in vitro fertilization) agreement nearly four years ago."

Reach the reporter at dustin.gardiner@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-2471. Follow him on Twitter: @dustingardiner.
Dig Deeper
Top news headlines

This actually might be a net positive considering the abortion debate. It could help establish the personhood of the embryos, particularly in light of the legislators new law saying

'State law now requires that viable embryos from a divorced couple be awarded to the parent who will allow a child to be born. It also states the other parent has no rights or obligations.'

Interesting..
 
Back
Top