Kate plus 8 means no date.
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 335
Life in modern America is full compelling contradictions. As a trial lawyer I’ve seen more than my share, but today’s case has piqued my interest more than others. It’s the quintessential knotty legal problem that greater minds will struggle to resolve.
The case involves three competing elements: religion versus science, what’s the meaning of life along with human drama of he-said-she-said factual dispute, all rolled up into one tidy case.
Looking at the legal issues brings to mind the Jon & Kate Plus Eight reality show on the Discovery Channel.
Men are pretty simple creatures. Once in awhile make us think that you need us and we are happy as clams at high tide.
Ignore us and we are capable of heading off to Argentina to find a place where we are considered useful.
Kate fell in love with Jon, married him, then had fertility treatments, got pregnant, gave birth to 8 children and then worked on making a lot of money and her into a career. Somewhere along the way Kate forgot about Jon and now they are going their separate ways. They’ve made a ton of money, Kate has a career, Jon isn’t taking being bossed around any more and it appears Kate’s meal tickets, and her, are continuing the career. I suspect if it were Jon with the career, pushing his wife out of his career life, there would be uproar about what a louse Jon is. But in this instance she’s got the career and he’s being pushed aside probably for the sake of a show and no one blinks an eye.
What exactly does the word necessary mean?
What Kate and the rest of her female approving audience don’t appreciate is that when Jon married Kate he didn’t fully appreciate that Kate plus 8 meant no dates. Are you listening Kate?
Let’s get back to today’s legal case of interest. Stick with me because by the end it will all make sense.
Here is what happened that set up the legal case. Before a guy died he and his wife froze his sperm. After he died she got artificially inseminated, she gets preggo and gives birth to a happy and healthy baby girl.
The widow then filed for social security death (survivor) benefits; even though she got pregnant knowing the father was already dead and knowing the child could never be a dependent of the father. Don’t take me wrong I’m not making light of the guys illness or his death, but the case is as unique as I’ve seen in Iowa since the Iowa Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling announced in April 2009. One fact seems easy to prove; the child was never a dependent of her father. The mother conceived the child after the father had died. The question is whether or not you can be born into a “dependency” that never existed and is an impossibility.
This is an Iowa case and it makes me ponder how Iowa keeps getting inside the eye of the next legal storm?
And people think we Midwesterners are dull...
But if you’re a thinking person this isn’t the end of the story; it’s just the beginning, because many women want to have it all. Kind of like Kate plus 8 meant no dates for Jon. Kate had wanted a whole brood and a career; and then the photographers taking pictures of her with the flat stomach and the bikini on the beach, along with the book signings, the production meetings, the photo shoots with People magazine and … oh yeah an accessory husband. We can’t forget about the husband, now can we? What’s his name? Oh yeah Kate, it’s Jon.
Career woman can be worse than men ever acted. And what about that widow seeking benefits from our Social Security Administration fund?
The Smaller Question: Should the widow get the bennies or not?
Answer: Whether in your mind she does or don’t you should know the Social Security Administration said no we still need men. The government says Brynn is not eligible for the benefits, based upon an interpretation of a 150-year-old Iowa law written long before technology was available to allow the preservation of spermatic material beyond a person's life time. The law is a remarkable thing. Just consider for a moment, that this law was written long before science had begun to make men unnecessary. Keep in mind if they can freeze enough sperm they don’t need the rest of us.
But there is a bigger question looming in the future.
The Bigger Question: Will women in the future, who are in power, begin a massive effort to freeze men’s sperm; are women making the decision they don’t need men or is it simply evolution? I say let’s unplug the freezer.
Men are pretty simple, make us feel necessary and like Achilles we will conquer a country like Troy to prove just how useful we can be. Ignore us for a career or kids and like Sanford you might find us dancing the tango in Argentina.
In the case of the South Carolina Governor, it’s really quite simple; men are fallible; just as fallible as women can act.
Jon Are You, Like George A Modern Man?
Let’s get back to the legal case. Are there other similar social security and inheritance legal cases? Yes there are.
In 2002, for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that twin girls born two years after their father's death should have normal inheritance rights as long as the father's consent to the after-death conception and genetic relationship could be proved. This court found you can birth your way into an inheritance if you can prove the father’s consent.
Question not answered by this case: Can a father using a surrogate mother birth his child into an inheritance, assuming he can prove consent of the genetic mother?
Contrary Holding: However, a ruling from the Arkansas Supreme Court last year denied inheritance rights to a child born through in vitro fertilization after his father's death. This court found you can not birth your way into the inheritance of a person’s estate.
The 9th Circuit Court ruled in 2004 that two Arizona children conceived about a year after their father's death were entitled to Social Security benefits. But last week, the 9th Circuit Court ruled that a 10-year-old Los Angeles girl conceived from the frozen sperm of a dead father should not receive his Social Security benefits. The court's decision stated that while there was a biological relationship between the girl and her father, the girl was not a dependent at the time of his death as defined by Social Security regulations and California law. That’s interesting language. You probably ought to remember it.
The Future of Mankind may be Imperiled: Investing tax dollars in scientific research is a scary proposition for men.
What if science gets to the point of being able to take DNA from the bodies of dead men and is then able to impregnate living females?
In the future, whether by evolution or otherwise, men could be rendered useless. Useless meaning obsolete from a pro-creating standpoint.
They will hate that thought at Liberty University.
Okay, but give me me the remote.
And we wonder why our kids seem confused?
Questions to be answered in the future:
Is there such a thing as being a mother or father when the only connection is some frozen genetic material?
Is a physical connection necessary to legally be a father or mother?
What if in 2010 Ulysses DNA can be archeologically discovered and used to impregnate a woman? Can the Estate of Ulysses be sued for child support?
Will women in the future still need men or just a good Amana freezer?
Will planet Earth in the future include a man?
Will Kate continue to use the 8 without her mate?
Campaigning on family values can Governor Sanford tango his way back into the Governor’s mansion and South Carolina politics?