Kansas州정부는 한 남자의 정액을 받아 두 '레스비안'동성부부에게 기증했다가 한 여자에게서 여자아이가 생겼다. 지금 3살이 됐는데 그 에미가 정부에서 '웰훼어'구호금을 받아내자 주정부가 그 남자를 추적하여 그 아이의 양육비를 물어내라는 법정투쟁을 벌렸다는구먼.

Artificial Insemination 즉 불특정의 남자들의 정액을 의사의 주관 하에 아이를 원하는 여자에게 임신시켰을 경우에는 그 아이의 아버지에게 양육할 책임이 없다고 법으로 규정하고 있단다.

그런데 아래의 최근 뉴스에 의하면, Angela Bauer란 여자와 Jennifer Schreiner란 동성연애자 커풀이 인터넽에 광고를 내어서 정액을 제공할 남자를 구했다고 한다. 여기에 응한 남성으로 William Marotta가 얼씨구나 자기의 정액을 선사하기로 하고 우째우째 해서 그 여자에게 임신을 시켰다는구먼. 어떻게 그것이 남성에게서 나와서 여자의 몸으로 들어간 것에 관한 자세한 것은 모르고, 분명한 것은 의사의 입회 아래에서 이루진 것은 분명히 아니었다.

나중에 법적인 문제를 염려하여 세 사람이 서약하기를 앞으로 생길 일에서 애비의 의무를 묻지 않기로 했다고 한다. 그러나 딸아이의 엄마인 Jennifer가 납세자의 돈으로 자기네가 한 짓의 경비를 타내어가는 꼴을 주정부가 못 보아주겠다는 것이다.

이를 주장하는 근거로, 법으로 규정한 대로 의사의 간여 하에 이루어진 것이 아닌 바라, 본인들이 애비와 에미로써 응분의 책임을 져야 한다는 주장이었다. 두 여자들은 약속한 대로 남자에게는 손을 벌리지 않고 주정부의 웰훼어를 받아내려는 데에서 문제가 생긴 것이다.

여성권익을 위한 단체나 인공임신문제협의 단체에서는 Kansas州의 해당法은 시대착오적 舊式法(구식법)이니 이를 개정해서 인테넽에서 구입한 정액은 의사와 상관없이 처리해서 善意(선의)의 사마리아人정신을 높이 사주어야 한다는 주장인데...

나는 그런 정액을 제공해 달라는 광고를 구경한 적도 없었고, 설혹 보았다고 해도 누가 내꺼를 원하겠오이까? 나중에 어찌 될값에 나도 한번 좋은 일을 하고 싶어도 않될 것이 뻔한데 말이야.

여기 열당의 필자나 독자들 중에 이런 광고에 한번 응해보고 나중에 주정부의 시비의 대상이 돼 보시면 어떨까 합니다. 우는 여자에게 떡하나 더 떼어주는 셈치고 말이요. 가죽주사가 아닌 이상 하긴 재미상 없는 일이지만서도...


禪涅槃

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

TOPEKA, Kan. -- Experts believe a Kansas sperm donor being sued by the state for child support put himself in a precarious legal position by getting involved in a lesbian couple's do-it-yourself artificial insemination.

Kansas law states that a sperm donor is not the father of a child if a doctor handles the artificial insemination. But the law does not specifically address the donor's rights and obligations when no doctor was involved.

That was the case in 2009, when William Marotta answered an online ad for a sperm donation for Angela Bauer and her then-partner, Jennifer Schreiner. The three signed an agreement they believed severed Marotta's parental rights, and Schreiner became pregnant.

But because they didn't go through a doctor, the state argues, Marotta is the legal father and should be responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance Schreiner received to help care for the child. The state also wants him to pay child support, though neither woman is asking for money.

Marotta's attorney said Thursday that the law is outdated. But legal experts agreed that Marotta and the women put themselves in the predicament.

"I don't fault the state for this," said Corey Whelan, who runs workshops for lesbian couples interested in having children through the New York-based American Fertility Association. "I don't think this is a homophobic issue. I think this is a financially driven issue."

Whelan said her group has a long-standing practice of advising single women who want a child to work with doctors and attorneys. She said avoiding professionals is "a buyer-beware proposition."

But money can be a factor. Artificial insemination generally isn't covered by health insurance and usually costs between $2,000 and $3,000, said Steve Snyder, a Minnesota-based attorney and chairman of the American Bar Association's group on assisted reproduction technology.

"It is happening a lot," Snyder said. "Go on amazon.com, home insemination kit, $29.95. A lot of LGBT couples use them. I have a lot of cases involving those types of kits or people who intend to use them."

That sets up a tricky legal situation, said Dr. Ajay Nangia, the former ethics chairman of the American Society of Andrology, a national medical group for male reproductive health.

"The problem is the guy exposed himself to a situation that made him potentially liable because he had no legal protection," said Nangia, an associate professor of urology at the University of Kansas Hospital.

Still, Ben Swinnen, one of Marotta's attorneys, said his 46-year-old client cannot be declared the father of Schreiner's now 3-year-old daughter because of the written agreement with the two women. He pointed to laws in nine states that say a sperm or egg donor is not the parent of a child conceived through artificial reproduction.

"The state of Kansas is lagging behind in following the trend," he said. "It is a freeze, in my opinion, on artificial insemination and alternative family settings."

He also believes state officials' pursuit of Marotta's case in Kansas, where voters approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2005, is designed to reinforce the definition of a family as a married man and woman, and their children. He said the state is trying to send a message that, "anything else is no good."

But the Kansas Department for Children and Families, which started pursuing Marotta in October, argued in a court filing Wednesday that at least 10 other states require a doctor's involvement in artificial insemination for a sperm donor to be protected from having to pay child support.

"It's a commonsense law," said Washington state-based attorney Mark Demaray, a past president of an organization for attorneys who handle assisted reproduction legal issues. "It's very common for them to have to go through a doctor's office and get a sworn statement from the doctor that he or she performed this procedure."

Marotta is trying to get the case dismissed. A hearing is scheduled in April in Shawnee County District Court.
Bauer and Schreiner have told The Topeka Capital-Journal that they're backing Marotta in his fight. The Associated Press left a message Thursday at a phone number listed for Schreiner, and she didn't respond to a Facebook message. Listings for Bauer were incorrect or out of service.

A spokeswoman with the Department for Children and Families said earlier this week that the agency routinely tries to track down the biological father when a single mother seeks public benefits for a child, as Schreiner did in January 2012, and require him to pay child support.

The effort, the state says, is to potentially lessen the burden on taxpayers. Officials in Gov. Sam Brownback's administration declined further comment Thursday.

It wasn't immediately clear Thursday whether other states have pursued sperm donors for child support. However, lawsuits have been filed in cases where mothers seek support from donors.
Last year, a state appeals court in California sided with a Texas man who was sued for child support. In New Mexico, a state appeals court in 2008 ruled against a sperm donor who saw the children regularly and had agreed to pay some child support but didn't want the amount increased.

In 2002, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws suggested that states have laws specifying that "a donor is not a parent of a child conceived by means of assisted reproduction" and that no donor could be sued to support the resulting child.

Kansas' law, enacted in 1994, was based on an earlier model law from the same Chicago-based group, but legislators haven't revised it. The group's website says the newer language has been enacted in nine states, including Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas.

"It was updated as science progressed," said Eric Fish, legal counsel for the group. "It continues to progress more quickly than the law."