Children conceived after fathers die aren't eligible, bench rules
I just listened the audio replay of this supreme court argument. The Justices
ruled in favor of the SSI's past policy of honoring the individual state
laws regarding inheritance versus creating a new federal mandate. It was
interesting to hear the skepticism of the court that the 1939 Social Security
Act could have foretold the present day prevalence of in-vitro fertilization.
Another ruling in favor of states rights and a unanimous ruling at
that. Could this be a clue to the health care decision that will be released in
the coming weeks?
Ditto! Could this be a money-making scheme for the mother?
I agree 100% with the Court's decision. If a woman decides to
use her dead husband's frozen sperm to produce a baby, that baby
doesn't deserve "survivor" benefits since the baby
"survived" nobody but came along later.
This brings up a good point and I think its a right decision due to the fact the
father did not participate or give his permission to create this conception.
More than likely the father went through sterilization and planed for future
children as a choice he would participate in. I don't think the mother had
the right to use her dead husbands sperm without his permission.This
also brings up another question about sperm banks and insemination of women to
get pregnant, shouldn't they have the written permission of the father or
sperm donor to create a pregnancy? And does this invalidate any federal
liability of all donated sperm? In Utah an absentee father is held liable for
child support, even in an illegal adoption approved by this state regardless of
where a father lives.Will this put a chink in the states illegal
practice of garnishing wages and any inheritance or property and assets of
fathers dead or living? Will this classify dead fathers as dead beat fathers so
property and assets can be seized from surviving families?The judges
says no, but Utah will fight it with angry fervor.