Is there something in the water in Manassas?

Bob Marshall has joined the Manassas town council in seeking to use the law to redefine “acceptable” families.

He’s introduced a bill to deny all unmarried women access to medical assistance in becoming pregnant.

Under this bill, a widow of a solier killed in Iraq, who had banked his sperm before deployment, could not be assisted by any medical professional in Virginia with becoming pregnant.

No single woman concerned about her biological clock could choose to become pregnant through artifical means.

And, of course, this would prevent any gay or lesbian couple from becoming a family through biological means except, possibly, if they used a married woman as a surrogate to carry a child for them. Even this might be precluded for lesbian couples by language that says that medical professionals can’t assist with a procedure “on or for” an unmarried woman, but could for an unmarried man?

There seems to be no end to Marshall’s need to interfere with other people’s families.

I certainly hope that his bill was covered with a gray jacket when it came out of legislative drafting. It’s not only mean, it’s clearly unconstitutional.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

6 responses to “Is there something in the water in Manassas?”

  1. Will Vehrs Avatar
    Will Vehrs

    Marshall submits this kind of stuff every year. Every two years he’s re-elected.

    How often does his stuff pass?

    While everyone obsesses over Marshall’s latest (and Black’s before him) stuff, all sorts of other things get discussed and passed without much comment or oversight at all.

    Thousands of sermons are given every week, but it’s only the outrageous statements of Pat Robertson that anybody notices.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Don’t be a fool. This is so absurd that one must look beyond the actual legislation in order to grasp what is actually happening. The GA is getting ready to reconvene and this is political posturing in its worst form. It’s posturing directed at other Republicans more so than it is Democrats.

    Marshall is simply trying to draw, or re-draw the proverbial, “line in the sand” between conservatives and moderates in the Republican Party. A legislator’s support of this bill will simply solidify their position as being in lock step with the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party. Non-support of this bill will place legislators in the “other” column.

    I can see it now, a nice flashy mailer put out by some group like the Virginia Conservative Action PAC, citing non-support of this bill in an attempt to distort the moderate voting record of an incumbent legislator.

  3. Will Vehrs Avatar
    Will Vehrs

    Bob Marshall, conservative party builder.

    I don’t see it–I think he marches to his own drummer, but, then again, nobody’s offered me any Kool-Aid lately.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Somebody told me the difference between Manassas and yogurt is that yogurt has an active culture.

  5. blackbegone Avatar
    blackbegone

    They tried this nonsense in Indiana last year. Apparently, it was “more complex than anticipated.”

    This one included language concerning the “intended parents.”

    I like this part – check out the information they were seeking:

    The required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans and criminal history checks. Description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents also is required, including participation in faith-based or church activities.

    Maybe Bob could study this for some great ideas for making his bill even more unconstitutional. Bye Bob! Have fun with Dick!

  6. Delegate Bob Marshall Avatar
    Delegate Bob Marshall

    I guess it never occurred to any of your commentators that a child has a right to have both a father and a mother who are married.

    There is no right to a child, unless the child is a piece of property.

    To know your “father’s” name only as “donor,” someone who didn’t even want to touch your mother–well is that the way you would like your life scripted?

    What attitudes toward men will be conveyed by women who seek pregnancy in this fashion? And will those values be helpful to such children?

    The 1860’s was the last time Virginia honored contracts for the procurement of persons before enactment of the 13th amendment to the US Constitution making chattel slavery unconstitutional.

    Apparently we are doing it again all with the sanction of “enlightened society.”

    Since Virginia issues licenses to doctors to practice “medicine,” the practice can be restricted as provided for in my proposed statute.

    Adults should think of the needs of the child first.

    Delegate Bob Marshall

Leave a Reply