It's Like Griswold v State of Connecticut ALL Over Again

This law will, as the attorney writes, come up again. Look at the far right's smugness that they get to handpick the Supreme Court.

From FindLaw:

Two weeks ago, the State of Indiana was on its way to considering astatute that would have confined the use of assisted reproduction to married couples. Sponsored by State Senator Patricia Miller of Indianapolis, the law would have requiredpeople who wished to utilize assisted reproductionto obtain licensing, and would have denied suchlicensing to unmarried people. In addition,criminal penalties would have followed for the "unlicensed" reproducer.

Miller withdrew the bill after a firestorm of controversy. Yet this law, or one like it, might well reappear soon, in Indiana or elsewhere.

The proposed bill raises important and novel questions about what the Constitution has to say about the use of new technologies in procreation.

Griswold (I believe I have the name right) v State of Connecticut was the landmark case that ultimately cut down states' rights to tell women they could not use birth control. Many states had laws that basically forbade use of contraceptives.

I'm rather over simplifying here, but tonight's not my best night ever.

[Ed. note: For more info on Griswold, see here.]