Justices ponder whether babies born through artificial insemination should . . .

Justices ponder whether babies born through artificial insemination should get benefits

WASHINGTON — Karen Capato used the frozen sperm of her deceased husband to conceive twins, but the government denied them Social Security benefits as their father’s survivors. Her situation, more common as reproductive technology advances, had a mostly unsympathetic Supreme Court grappling Monday with the definition of “child,’ inheritance law and artificial insemination.
The case had justices trying to shoehorn a 1930s law that gave Social Security survivor benefits to the dependent “child or legally adopted child” of a person into a modern situation where a man can bank his sperm for use months or years later to produce a child he will never see.

“You want us to sort of apply this old law to new technology,” Justice Stephen Breyer said to Charles Rothfeld, the lawyer for Capato, the mother of twins fathered by her deceased husband, Robert. Lawmakers who wrote the survivor benefits law “never had any inkling about the situation that has arisen in this case,” added Justice Samuel Alito....
Justices ponder whether babies born through artificial insemination should get benefits - The Washington Post

Click to expand...

xpiher said:

Would the wife get his benefits anyways. if yes, then are they entitled to more than she would be otherwise. If no then I don't see the problem. If either of those questions answers is wrong then its a gray area IMO because it would allow for fraud to keep benefits that would otherwise not be granted. Even so, I don't see why they shouldn't get the benefits

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Harry Guerrilla said:

They shouldn't get benefits, in my opinion.
Those benefits are designed for the children of deceased people, with whom they relied on for income, livelihood, etc.

In this case, the children were conceived after the death, so there was no expectation of them having their father, to get living resources from.

Click to expand...

ChuckBerry said:

I agree with Harry, the mother bore the children with no expectation that the father would ever be able to provide for them through his work, which is the point of Social Security survivor benefits. In this case, the work ceased prior to the conception of the children, so if the mother wanted to support the kids, she should have attended to that through her own efforts.

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

What does the Constitution say on this? :roll:

Click to expand...

xpiher said:

I agree as well and amend my previous statement. that said, if the mother gets them anyways what exactly is the issue?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

What does the Constitution say on this? :roll:

Click to expand...

ChuckBerry said:

"Congress shall make no law giving government loot to popsicle kids."

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

I'll bank some sperm, you get pregnant if I die, and you'll get a monthly annuity until the kid's 18 years old." (My cynical lil' mind.)

Click to expand...

Harry Guerrilla said:

They shouldn't get benefits, in my opinion.
Those benefits are designed for the children of deceased people, with whom they relied on for income, livelihood, etc.

In this case, the children were conceived after the death, so there was no expectation of them having their father, to get living resources from.

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

Just to clarify again, a wife is not entitled to Social Security benefits when her husband dies until she turns age 60.

Click to expand...

xpiher said:

I didn't get your reply to my statement until just now. Thanks for clarifying and thus I agree with you and Harry; however, I think this brings up an investing point. If the one spouse sports another, then why does a widow (er) have to wait till 60 to receive some form of benefit, for atleast a little bit while he/she looks for employment or trains for new employment

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

Social Security benefits were not designed to be anything other than retirement benefits. That a spouse can receive benefits at age 60 from a deceased spouse speaks to retirement...not ongoing support when one is younger.

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

Justice Scalia says, on the other hand, to the effect that this isn't about applying an old law to new technology, this is about whether children who are born after the death of one parent are entitled to Social Security benefits.

I'm on the fence and am interested in reading others opinions.

Should these children (who were conceived after their father died) be entitled to benefits from their deceased father? What was the intent of the original benefit?

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

Justice Scalia says, on the other hand, to the effect that this isn't about applying an old law to new technology, this is about whether children who are born after the death of one parent are entitled to Social Security benefits.

I'm on the fence and am interested in reading others opinions.

Should these children (who were conceived after their father died) be entitled to benefits from their deceased father? What was the intent of the original benefit?

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

What does the Constitution say on this? :roll:

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

I applaud your ability to cut quick to the issue with implementing unconstitutional laws on the federal level...they simply then proceed to create more and more issues that function outside of the constitutional groundwork of what the federal government of the united states is SUPPOSED to be doing. Bravo. You're absolutely right, Social Security doesn't have a direct link to a constitutional duty of government and as such various constitutional issues cascade down around it.

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

What does the Constitution say on this? :roll:

Click to expand...