Ah, but this is a bit different... teh article says that was addressed, and they're not denying him the constittional right to procreate period, just until he has a J-O-B to cover it all... teh article cites a 2001 WI supreme court case on somethign similar:<quoted text>
Nope. Won't fly. The courts can't do anything that interferes with your right to procreate. Too many ways for that to go wrong.
Sterilzing the unfit was still around in the 60's I think.
Eugenics was big in Hitler's Germany.
I will tolerate serial inseminators to avoid going back to the Eugenics thing
In July 2001, Wisconsin Supreme Court justices upheld a Court of Appeals ruling that affirmed the probation condition stemming from a Manitowoc County case. In that case, a man had been charged with seven counts of intentional failure to support his nine children, according to the Supreme Court ruling in State vs. Oakley.
The justices ruled in that case that defendant David Oakley’s constitutional right to procreate wasn’t eliminated. He still could reproduce — if he made child support payments, according to the ruling.
but, given his biological role in procreation, i'm thinking it could still happen and nobody could knwo that (a) he did it and (b) it's his... those are teh bigger loopholes in this.