U.S. Supreme Court may bar Utah boy from dad's benefits

Children conceived after fathers die aren't eligible, bench rules

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • jpjazz Sandy, UT
    May 22, 2012 10:27 a.m.

    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?

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    May 22, 2012 8:42 a.m.

    Ditto! Could this be a money-making scheme for the mother?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 22, 2012 7:17 a.m.

    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.

  • 101Ways Taylorsville, UT
    May 22, 2012 5:17 a.m.

    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.