Stanek weekend question I: Should children conceived posthumously get government benefits?
It’s a strange question, but in these days of technologically created children, it is happening. From the Washington Post, May 21:
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a man’s children who were conceived through artificial insemination after his death cannot get Social Security survivor benefits.
Justices unanimously ruled that twins born to Robert Capato’s surviving wife Karen did not qualify for survivor benefits because of a requirement that the federal government use state inheritance laws.
The Capato twins, conceived using Robert Capato’s frozen sperm, were born 18 months after their father died of esophageal cancer. Karen Capato’s application for survivor benefits on behalf of the twins was rejected by the Social Security Administration, which said Robert Capato needed to be alive during the children’s conception to qualify….
Capato died a Florida resident, and Florida law expressly bars children conceived posthumously from inheritance, unless they are named in a will. The only beneficiaries named in Capato’s will are his wife, their son and his two children from a previous marriage.
Do you think children conceived posthumously should qualify for survivors’ benefits?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
No, and it’s obsurd to think that they should. Survivor’s benefits (or insurance payouts) are meant to replace *lost* support. When a child is conceived and/or birthed with two parents those two parents can expect the support of each other in raising the child(ren). When one dies something is lost, and the benefits help to replace that (however minimally). But if the child is conceived *after* the death of a parent then nothing is lost, there is nothing to replace, and there was never any expectation of help from the dead parent that needs to be replaced.
This is an AP article that came across all feeds – can we refrain from sourcing it as The Washington Post when their editors likely didn’t even know that it’s there?
they are his biological children, but to me it sounds like insurance fraud.
I agree with Jespren. This was done AFTER the fact with full knowledge. Luck of the draw, lady…and you lost.
What ever happened to having children the normal way? Man and woman meet, fall in love, get married, have children.
Dewayne: how horribly bourgeoisie of you! Haven’t you heard that the natural and traditional way of doing things is just patriachial slavery inflicted upon women by men and nature? Don’t you know that the natural woman is grossly inferior and men take advantage of that through age-old rituals of abuse dressed up as ‘love’ and ‘marriage’? Why, to be equal, women must demand complete and utter control over the crappy hand that biology has delt them and be able to circumvent, foil, and overcome their biology and the natural order of things. Why, suggesting children should happen in the ‘normal’ course of marriage as an act between a loving husband and wife is positively primeval!
;) I get sarcastic when I’m tired.
LOL!! Jespren.
Why do you want children by your late deceased husband especially when you already have a son together? But even if you don’t have a child by him it is still creepy.
Yes, they should get the benefits. No fraud about it. Caputo paid into SS and he also deposited his sperm so his wife could have their child. He consented therefore he consented to being the child’s father. Karen herself probably paid into social security and will likely see nothing when she retires, her twins should get the benefit. Look at all the fraudulent disabilty cases going on, you want to talk about fraud? There you go.