A Man Need Not Apply

A few years ago I wrote a post about the social security benefits case involving a child born by in-vitro fertilization following the father’s untimely death. Apparently the father died of cancer, but before dying they froze his sperm and after his death the mother of the child was inseminated, gave birth and thereafter filed with the Social Security Administration for dependent death benefits. The legal question involved whether the child was ever dependent on the father. The answer at this point in the litigation from the U.S. Court of Appeals is no.

Does In Vitro Fertilization Make Social Security Benefits The Simplest Investment, Lombardi, December 7, 2009

We Need Social Security Act Reform not Tort Reform - The new law in Iowa makes the Beeler decision moot.

The legal challenge has to do with an Iowa law making children born out of wedlock illegitimate. In May Governor Branstad signed into law a bill named the Posthumous Conception Bill intending to establish legal legitimacy and inheritance rights for children born out of wedlock. But how does Governor Branstad square away his signing the law and not seeing the irony of Brien vs Varner and the entire defense of family debate?

The Spin Doctor – The Globe Gazette link – The National Law Review Link

And as a taxpayer who knows that SS benefits are essentially bankrupt, why should people who use science to conceive expect the rest of us to pay SS benefits for the next 18 years? This must be the most lucrative participation trophy yet conceived by man and woman. This is supposed to be a retirement subsistence plan. Nothing more and nothing less – the Congress corrupted the Act many years ago as a way to avoid having to deal with financial issues of the disabled. The SSA can’t be everything to everyone. It just can’t. But that’s what this is about – I showed up therefore I expect a trophy. The fact I showed up must mean I’m a winner. It’s more make-believe. This has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with teaching and being irresponsible.

Social Security Benefits vs In Vitro Square Off Before the 8^th Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8^th Circuit opinion of August 29, 2011 by Circuit Judge Colloton.

Beeler vs Astrue, Social Security Commissioner, No. 10-1092 – U.S. Court of Appeals link and on the Lombardi Law Firm site link.

The Social Security Act authorizes the payment of benefits to the dependent children of deceased workers.  This case requires us to determine whether a child conceived through artificial insemination more than a year after her father’s death qualifies for benefits under the Act.  The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) interprets the Act to provide that a natural child of the decedent is not entitled to benefits unless she has inheritance rights under state law or can satisfy certain additional statutory requirements.  We conclude that the Commissioner’s interpretation is, at a minimum, reasonable and entitled to deference, and that the relevant state law does not entitle the applicant in this case to benefits.

We therefore reverse the district court’s contrary judgment.