Indiana’s Attorney General, Curtis Hill has submitted a brief asking the Supreme Court to rethink a court decision that protects same-sex parents.
Hill argues that parental rights based on biology are at risk.
The brief states: “A birth mother’s wife will never be the biological father of the child, meaning that, whenever a birth-mother’s wife gains presumptive parentage status, a biological father’s rights and obligations to the child have necessarily been undermined without proper adjudication.”
Ten months ago the U.S. 7th Circuit Court Of Appeals backed a lower court decision that made it legal for same-sex couples in Indiana to both be listed as parental guardians on their children’s birth certificates.
The initial case that spurred the decision followed married couple Ashlee and Ruby Henderson after they sued Indiana’s health commissioner in 2015.
In response to Hill’s petition, the Henderson’s attorney, Karen Celestino-Horseman states: “We are hopeful the court will follow the precedent in ‘Pavan.'”
The 2017 Paven v. Smith case, was similar to the Henderson case and followed same-sex couples from Arkansas fighting for the same parental rights. After arguing that the state law was in direct violation of the constitution, the Supreme Court ruled in their favour.
With the confirmation of justice Amy Coney Barrett and the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, many LGBTQ+ citizens are fearful that their basic human rights will be stripped away.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to deliberate the petition on 11 December.
Latest
