Activists: Topeka sperm donor case opportunity for change
Implications go beyond issues of same-sex unions
Posted: January 2, 2013
By Aly Van Dyke
THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL
As divisive as Kansas’ child support claim against a sperm donor to a lesbian couple is, activists on both sides of the issue can agree on a couple of things: first, that the case is an opportunity for change, and second, that its implications reach beyond same sex unions.
Organizations that support gay and lesbian rights say the claim is politically motivated but can be used as an opportunity to give rights to same sex partners.
For conservative groups, it is a chance for Kansas to reinforce its laws protecting traditional marriage. They offered arguments about how same sex parenthood is damaging to the children to such unions and supported the state’s claim against sperm donor William Marotta, 46.
But both sides said the issue currently set before the Shawnee County District Court goes beyond the usual arguments surrounding the legalization of gay marriage in America. It deals with adoption and the relatively untouched issue of artificial insemination — and, as such, has implications for heterosexual couples as well.
In 2009, Jennifer Schreiner, now 34, and Angela Bauer, now 40, posted an advertisement on Craigslist asking for a sperm donor. Marotta responded and, after a few meetings, signed an agreement relinquishing parental rights. He dropped off the specimen, and the women used it to impregnate Schreiner. A baby girl was born Dec. 7, 2009.
Now, the former couple has fallen on hard times and requested Medicaid assistance for their now 3-year-old daughter. The Kansas Department for Children and Families subsequently filed a child support claim against Marotta, claiming the contract was void because a licensed physician didn’t perform the insemination.
Artificial insemination, according to federal law, is considered a medical procedure, said Robert Noland, executive director of the Kansas Family Policy Council. The council relies on Christian values to help inform state policy regarding families, according to its website.
“The Department of Children and Families is following the law and appears to be doing its part to safeguard state resources, as it would for any other child receiving benefits,” he said.
Many states require that physicians perform artificial insemination, though few people know about it, said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. He added that infertile couples of all kinds do turn to Craigslist for donors without learning enough about the state’s laws.
“It’s unfortunate,” Minter said. “There’s no medical reason to go through a doctor. So this is an area where law needs to be updated.”
Also at issue in the case are parenting rights of unmarried couples, straight and gay alike.
Bauer has said she is willing to assume financial responsibility for the 3-year-old girl, but the state doesn’t recognize same sex partners, so she doesn’t have any say in the matter.
However, an unmarried straight couple would find itself in the same boat as Bauer and Schreiner, all other facts of the case held constant, said Stephanie Mott, state chair of the Kansas Equality Coalition.
Kansas doesn’t recognize intended parents — a relatively new legal term that protects sperm donors from paying child support. That means the state could go after sperm donors of children who belong to unmarried couples of any sexual orientation, Mott argued — though she didn’t think it likely.
“I don’t think the state would have gone after them if this was an unmarried, opposite sex couple,” Mott said. “I’d be shocked if they did.”
Unmarried straight couples can get around this issue by filing two, single parent adoptions — a provision currently not available to same sex partners in Kansas.
Some states have navigated around the polarizing subject of same sex unions by accepting second-parent adoptions or recognizing intended parents as legal guardians. These laws prevent sperm donors and biological parents from fiscal and parental responsibility, because they recognize that the child wouldn’t exist otherwise, Minter said.
“Increasingly there are more and more states that recognize the intended parents as the child’s legal parents when children are born through artificial insemination,” Minter said. “It just makes sense. Really it’s just not rational for the state to try to go after someone who’s never played role or really is not a parent.”
Noland said he didn’t think the sanctity of marriage was at risk in this case, but did admit that the legislature may need to clarify laws regarding such reproductive situations. He wouldn’t go as far as to say any such law should ban same sex partners from those rights, but he did say children should be cared for by a man and a woman.
“We believe that children grow up best in households with mothers and fathers,” he said. “It’s the natural way things happen.”