What to know about the 'inseminated person' language in Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers' budget
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers' state budget proposal is under fire from Republicans nationwide over a provision that would change language in some areas of state law related to same-sex couples and the process of having a baby through in vitro fertilization by replacing words like "mother" and "father."
Evers proposes to swap out "husband" and "wife" for "spouse." In areas of state law related to legal rights to children that couples choose to have through in vitro fertilization, sperm donors or surrogates, Evers proposes replacing "woman," "mother" and "wife" with versions of "person who is inseminated," or "inseminated person."
Here's what to know:
The Democratic governor has included the changes in two previous budget proposals. They were removed by Republicans who control the state Legislature and budget-writing process in 2021 and 2023 without public discussion.
This year, however, state lawmakers and Republicans nationwide have leveled sharp criticism at Evers over the proposal, specifically for swapping out "mother" for "inseminated person."
Rep. Amanda Nedweski, R-Pleasant Prairie, was the first to point out the changes, calling the proposal insulting to mothers.
"It is not only deeply offensive, but it is an outright attack on the very essence of motherhood," Nedweski said in a statement released Friday. "It is unconscionable that the Governor has the audacity to take the most beautiful, life-giving act a woman can perform — bringing children into this world — and turn it into nothing more than gender-neutral, virtue-signaling jargon to appease his far-left base.'
'Governor Evers is a former science teacher,' Nedweski said. 'It appears to me that he needs a refresher on basic biology. Last I checked, only one gender is capable of giving birth — women. Anyone who says otherwise is denying science.'
Since Nedweski's comments on Friday, the proposals have received criticism from Republicans across the country.
"Hi Mom, I mean 'inseminated person'. This is crazy!!" Elon Musk, owner of Tesla, X and SpaceX and a leader of the Department of Government Efficiency under President Donald Trump, said in a post Tuesday that was reposted about 42,000 times.
"Imagine opening a card on Mother's Day with the message, "Happy Inseminated Person's Day," Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina posted Wednesday on X.
"As a woman currently going through IVF I can think of countless ways I'd rather be referred to than 'inseminated person,'" Alyssa Farah Griffin, co-host of "The View," posted Monday.
On Tuesday, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos blasted the provisions and dismissed the idea that statutes needed to change to address situations involving fertility treatments for same-sex couples, signaling they would again be removed from the spending plan.
"It's really one of those times where you have an answer to a problem that nobody agrees exists," Vos said. "It's really made Wisconsin a national embarrassment."
Evers defended the provisions in an appearance Monday in Wausau, saying they are meant to provide legal clarity for same-sex couples in the process of creating or growing families through IVF.
"What we want is legal certainty that moms are able to get the care they need," Evers said, according to WSAW. "That's it. End of story."
A spokeswoman for Evers said Republicans are lying about what the changes do.
"These are more lies, disinformation, and conspiracy theories from Republicans, Elon Musk, and right-wing extremists who are trying to politicize providing legal parental rights and certainty under the law for parents using IVF," Evers spokeswoman Britt Cudaback said in a statement.
"Republicans are lying about the governor and budget language that's identical to a Republican-backed bill, has nothing to do with what parents call themselves or what kids call their parents, does not eliminate 'mother' and 'father' from state law, and is about ensuring full legal rights for parents under the law. Full stop."
According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau, the proposal "recognizes same-sex marriage by making references in the statutes to spouses gender-neutral, with the intent of harmonizing the Wisconsin Statutes with the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges ... which recognizes that same-sex couples have a fundamental constitutional right to marriage.""The bill makes applicable to married persons of the same sex allprovisions under current law that apply to married persons of different sexes," the analysis said. "... the bill specifies ways in which married couples of the same sex may be the legal parents of a child and, with some exceptions, makes current references in the statutes to 'mother' and 'father,' and related terms, gender-neutral."
The proposed changes would help codify a 2016 federal court ruling requiring the state to put the names of same-sex parents on the birth certificates of their children, according to Madison-based attorney Theresa Roetter, who specializes in legal issues related to creating families.
The case involved a same-sex couple, Chelsea and Jessamy Torres, who were married in New York in 2012. Same-sex marriage became legal in Wisconsin in 2014. In March 2015, Chelsea gave birth in Madison to the couple's son.
They filled out paperwork at the hospital in Madison but claimed the state health agency would not supply an accurate certificate with both Chelsea and Jessamy listed as the parents.
Their federal lawsuit pointed out that DHS issued birth certificates to children of opposite-sex couples without regard to how the child was conceived or whether both spouses were the biological parents because Wisconsin law presumes the spouse of a woman who gives birth is the father.
According to drafting files related to the 2021-23 state budget bill, Evers officials included in that spending plan language from a 2019 bill that ultimately did not go anywhere.
It was supported by a group of Democratic lawmakers, including Senate and Assembly minority leaders Dianne Hesselbein of Middleton and Greta Neubauer of Racine, and two Republicans: Reps. Joel Kitchens of Sturgeon Bay and Todd Novak of Dodgeville.
The bill did not receive a public hearing or floor vote.
Roetter said the state statute under scrutiny was first created in 1979 to accommodate sperm donation.
"It needs to be updated for all families who need to use assisted reproduction to become parents," Roetter said, including for same-sex couples, heterosexual couples, couples using an egg donor or donated embryos, or for a person who wants to become a single mother or single father using donated eggs, embryos or sperm.
"I know that some people feel like this is an ideological, right-left sort of issue, but I will tell you my clients are all across the board politically," Roetter said.
Roetter said she would not have used "inseminated person" to make the changes she said are needed because it only accounts for sperm donation and suggested "intended parent" as a substitute.
"(The statute) only talks about somebody who's receiving donated sperm, not (donated eggs) or embryos. So, updates are definitely needed. I just wouldn't have used the word 'inseminated person.'"
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: What to know about 'inseminated person' language in Tony Evers' budget
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump supporters, this is what you're cheering as his deportation scheme unfolds
For the past several days, Los Angeles has been alive with protests over President Donald Trump's immigration agenda. These largely peaceful demonstrations are vital to democracy. They're also infuriating Trump and Republicans. They've upset the president so much, in fact, that he deployed the National Guard and 700 U.S. Marines to the city against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. On the campaign trail for reelection, Trump threatened the 'largest deportation operation in American history.' Whether he's actually achieving that doesn't really matter; the terror he's instilling in immigrant communities is unlike anything I've seen in my lifetime. In the wake of these protests, it is important to remember why people are upset in the first place. Protesters are angry that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is indiscriminately targeting people, and these people, who are being arrested and deported, have no access to due process. They are angry, and they are allowed to voice their frustrations. While nearly half the country voted for this terrifying regime, half the country wanted anything but this. It's deeper than what's happening in Los Angeles. It's what this administration is doing all over the country. For those who still support Trump's plan, here is what you are supporting. What's particularly alarming about what's happening in Los Angeles is that it flies in the face of the Republican fight for states' rights. Apparently, it's fine when abortion is left to the states, but protests must be managed by the federal government. In fact, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem once called out former President Joe Biden for even thinking about federalizing the National Guard in Texas in 2024. Now, she's cheering on Trump's actions in California. The cognitive dissonance is astounding. Opinion: Trump is so busy wasting $134 million on LA invasion he forgot to lower prices I am glad people are protesting Trump's horrific immigration policies. I am glad folks are standing up for their neighbors, because whether you like it or not, undocumented people are contributing members of your community. But the truth is that if you're excited about the federal government invading California, then you stopped caring about states' rights. Since Trump was inaugurated for his second term, ICE has arrested more than 100,000 undocumented migrants. The vast majority of the people being detained in ICE facilities have no criminal convictions. People reporting for their immigration hearings – as they have been instructed to do by the U.S. government – have been arrested. So were people at a Los Angeles Home Depot looking for work. To Trump and the people within his administration, every undocumented immigrant is a criminal. It's not just undocumented immigrants who are being taken in. Take Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legal U.S. resident who was wrongly deported to a maximum security prison in El Salvador and only recently returned to the United States to face federal criminal charges. There are also student protesters, like Mahmoud Khalil, who have been detained by immigration officials because they dared to speak out against what's happening in Gaza. Republicans are now afraid of words. Opinion: After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment – only MAGA can protest These arrests have become too much for a select few Trump supporters who still have a conscience. Florida Sen. Ileana Garcia, one of the founders of 'Latinas for Trump,' recently called out the inhumane actions of Trump and White House adviser Stephen Miller. 'This is not what we voted for,' Garcia wrote. 'I have always supported Trump, @realDonaldTrump, through thick and thin. However, this is unacceptable and inhumane. I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings ‒ in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims ‒ all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal.' Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. I hate to break it to Garcia, but this is exactly what she and others voted for. This is what America's 'largest deportation operation' was always going to look like – it was never going to just be the 'worst of the worst.' But her latest reaction is a sign that supporting Trump now means something different. It now means supporting rounding up people following the legal process just to make yourself feel better with a fake sense of "securing the border." Under Trump, immigration officials have essentially done away with due process in the interest of meeting deportation goals. They've made it clear they want no part of following the law or the process for deporting people. That's too much work. They'd rather defy the courts, then play the victim when the courts rule against them. Opinion: Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted? That's what happens when you arrest people on their way to immigration hearings. That's what happens when you deport people to jurisdictions outside of the United States. It is what happens when you circumvent the rules to achieve a goal, and it should terrify everyone. Regardless of what Trump and Republicans think, the right to due process for everyone is enshrined in the Constitution. If the president can take away the rights of a vulnerable group of people, who's to stop him from infringing on the rights of U.S. citizens in the future? Again, Republicans, you still want this? You want people to be stripped of their rights? You want a federal government imposing itself on states? You want people deported indiscriminately? Congratulations, then. You're doing it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump lied. ICE nabs law-abiding immigrants, not criminals | Opinion
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Catastrophic': Rural public media stations brace for GOP cuts
Public media stations around the country are anxiously awaiting the results of Thursday's House vote that could claw back $1.1 billion from public broadcasting, with leaders warning that the cuts present an existential crisis for public media's future. For smaller stations — many of which are in rural parts of the country — the funding makes up critical chunks of their yearly operating budgets. Many of them are being forced to plan how they'll survive the cuts, if they can at all, public media executives say. Local leaders say the cuts would not only deprive their audiences of news and educational programming, but could also lead to a breakdown of the emergency broadcast message infrastructure that is critical for communities with less reliable internet or cellular service. 'That would mean an almost immediate disappearance of almost half our operating budget,' David Gordon, executive director of KEET in Eureka, California, said of the rescission proposal. 'Assuming [KEET] would continue, it would be in a very, very different form than it is right now.' The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that distributes federal money to public media stations via grants, said about 45 percent of public radio and TV stations it provided grants to in 2023 are in rural areas. Nearly half of those rural stations relied on CPB funding for 25 percent or more of their revenue. But that funding is being targeted for a vote as part of a push from President Donald Trump that also aims to cut $8.3 billion in foreign aid. The rescissions package would cut CPB funding already approved by Congress for the next two fiscal years. The proposal, which only needs approval from a simple majority, must pass both chambers of Congress within 45 legislative days from the day it's introduced. The House is set to vote on Thursday. If the House and Senate follow their current schedules, the deadline to vote on the cuts is July 18. If the deadline passes and Congress has not approved the cuts, the White House will be required to spend the money — but funding could still be cut in future budgets. If approved, the package would codify a series of cuts first picked out by the Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year. Both Trump and Elon Musk, former head of DOGE, have repeatedly accused NPR and PBS of bias against Republicans. In 2023, the Musk-owned social media site X labeled NPR as "state-affiliated media," falsely suggesting the organization produces propaganda. Trump regularly suggested cutting federal funding for public media during his first term. But his second term has brought increased hostility to mainstream media outlets, including the Associated Press, Voice of America, ABC News and CBS News. Approximately 19 percent of NPR member stations count on CPB funding for at least 30 percent of their revenue — a level at which stations would be unlikely to make up if Congress approves the rescissions, according to an NPR spokesperson. Ed Ulman, CEO of Alaska Public Media, predicts over a third of public media stations in Alaska alone would be forced to shut down 'within three to six months' if their federal funding disappears. PBS CEO Paula Kerger said in an interview she expects 'a couple dozen stations' to have 'significant' funding problems 'in the very near term' without federal funding. And she believes more could be in long-term jeopardy even if they survive the immediate aftermath of the cuts. 'A number of [stations] are hesitant to say it publicly,' she said. 'I know that some of our stations are very, very worried about the fact that they might be able to keep it pieced together for a short period of time. But for them, it will be existential.' Smaller stations with high dependency on federal funding may be forced into hard choices about where to make cuts. Some stations are considering cutting some of what little full-time staff they have, or canceling some of the NPR and PBS programming they pay to air. Phil Meyer, CEO of Southern Oregon PBS in Medford, Oregon, said his station will have to get creative just to stay afloat. 'If we eliminated all our staff, it still wouldn't save us enough money,' Meyer said. 'It becomes an existential scenario planning exercise where, if that funding does go away, we would have to look at a different way of doing business.' Some rural stations are worried they won't be able to cover the costs to maintain the satellite and broadcast infrastructure used to relay emergency broadcast messages without the federal grants. In remote areas without reliable broadband or internet coverage, public media stations can be the only way for residents to get natural disaster warnings or hear information about evacuation routes. After Hurricane Helene devastated Western North Carolina last year, leaving the region without electricity for days, Blue Ridge Public Radio in Asheville, North Carolina, provided vital information on road closure and access to drinking water for people using battery-powered and hand-cranked radios. 'I think it's pretty catastrophic,' Sherece Lamke, president and general manager of Pioneer PBS in Granite Falls, Minnesota, said of the potential consequences of losing the 30 percent of her station's budget supplied by CPB. Station managers around the country have made direct pleas to their home congressional delegations in the past year, urging them to protect public broadcasting from the rescission proposal and publicly opposing Trump's executive order calling on CPB to stop providing funding to stations. PBS, NPR and some local stations have sued the Trump administration to block the order. Brian Duggan, general manager of KUNR Public Radio in Reno, Nevada, said he's optimistic about the chances of the House voting down the funding cuts, particularly after talking with his local member of Congress, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), who co-signed a statement opposing cuts to public media on Monday. 'I maintain optimism … based on my conversations with the congressman,' Duggan said. 'I will just hold out hope to see what happens ultimately on the House floor.' Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, whose public media stations are among the most dependent on federal grants in the country, told POLITICO on Wednesday she's concerned about stations in her state and is trying to get the package changed. In the wake of Trump administration pressure, some stations have seen an uptick in grassroots donations. But while larger stations in well-populated metro areas have broader, wealthier donor bases to draw on for additional support, many rural stations can only expect so much help from their community. Some of the stations in rural areas are forced to navigate the added complication of asking for donations from Republican voters as Trump rails against the public media ecosystem. 'We live in a very purple district up here,' Sarah Bignall, CEO and general manager of KAXE in Grand Rapids, Minnesota said. 'If we started kind of doing the push and the fundraising efforts that were done in the Twin Cities, it would be very off-putting to a lot of our listeners.' Increases in donations, sponsors and state funding — only some states fund public broadcasting, and other states are pushing their own cuts to public broadcasting — would be unlikely to cover the full loss of smaller stations with heavy dependence on federal grants. 'It's not like we can just go, you know, 'Let's find a million dollars somewhere else.'' Lamke said. 'If we knew how to do that, we would have.' Longtime public media employees have experience in managing the lack of certainty that comes with the nonprofit funding model. But some said that the federal cuts, along with the White House effort to eliminate the public media model, have made forecasting the future of their stations more difficult than ever. 'I think this is the biggest risk that we've had, certainly in the time that I've been in public broadcasting,' Kruger said. 'And I've been in this business 30 years.' Calen Razor contributed to this report.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What exactly does Donald Trump think the federal government is supposed to do?
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. There are some major contradictions in President Donald Trump's view of what government should do to help and protect Americans as expressed this week. He promised to 'wean' the country off federal disaster relief and wind down FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Cleaning up after hurricanes, wildfires and earthquakes should be a state function, he said. 'A governor should be able to handle it, and frankly, if they can't handle it, the aftermath, then maybe they shouldn't be governor,' Trump told reporters on Tuesday. Trump seized control of California's National Guard from Gov. Gavin Newsom, federalizing troops and putting them on the streets of Los Angeles over the objections of local and state leaders. He has threatened to send troops to other cities throughout the country. Critics, including Newsom, accused Trump of an illegal authoritarian overreach. California has sued the administration to end the callup of Marines and National Guard. Trump's actions had the effect of inciting more unrest instead of quieting it, according to the state's leaders. 'These are the acts of a dictator, not a president,' Newsom said on social media. He is primed to roll back California's looming ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, at least according to Rep. Kevin Kiley, a California Republican. Expect lawsuits. California's Environmental Protection agency has enacted its own climate change policy because the federal government, which has switched from Democrats to Republicans in recent elections, has been unable to stick to one. Trump is also trying to dismantle climate change efforts enacted by Democrats under President Joe Biden. Trump is trying to end the Department of Education in part because he says he wants to return more power over education to the states. At the same time, he's threatening state universities and school systems that want to prioritize a diverse environment. Trump has done all he can to strong-arm American institutions into ending diversity programs that are a reaction to the country's complicated racial past and is instead treating the inclusion of trans women in gendered sports as a major civil rights issue. The standoff between Trump and Newsom is in some ways the inverse of relationships between past Democratic presidents and Republican governors. While Trump is foisting troops onto Los Angeles over Newsom's objections, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, launched Operation Lone Star, which mobilized his state's National Guard to patrol the border and set up obstructions in spots when he felt federal authorities under Biden were not doing enough. Biden officials never threatened to arrest Abbott, however. Trump officials have warned mayors and Newsom against impeding federal immigration authorities. Abbott, for his part, took the initiative to put the Texas National Guard on standby as anti-deportation protests spread around the country. For instance, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders — who was Trump's first-term press secretary — was denied a request for tornado relief funds earlier this year. Sanders was ultimately able to obtain the funds by publicly lobbying and then calling Trump with a direct and personal appeal, as CNN's Gabe Cohen wrote. It would be interesting to see whether Newsom, a Democrat who has previously tangled with Trump, would be as successful. Trump has a history of denying assistance to California. He did it during his first term. In April, CNN reported that when billions of dollars in disaster funding were stalled, Republican governors had better luck at unfreezing them. The White House may already be cutting FEMA out of the equation, according to Cohen's report. He wrote that there have been multiple instances this year when FEMA has not been immediately notified that the White House had approved disaster relief packages, which led to delays in getting the funds out. Regardless, FEMA's normal way of doing business — approving aid based on nonpartisan formulas and the extent of damage — has been replaced by Trump's preferences. If a version of Trump's sweeping policy bill passes through Congress this year, it will also rewrite the social contract by which the federal government helps the lowest-income Americans. States would have to spend more to help provide health insurance through Medicaid programs, but they would also have to impose new work requirements, and millions of Americans would lose health insurance. Spending on food stamps, now called SNAP benefits, would be cut. Trump clearly wants the government to do less. Less foreign aid. Less scientific research. Less income taxes. Less responsibility to fund the social safety net. Except where he wants more. More defense spending. More tariffs (which are actually taxes). More military parades. More deportations.
