Imagine the following scenario:

In 2001, a man goes in for a bone marrow transplant after being diagnosed with leukemia the previous year. Before the transplant, he has his sperm preserved so that if something goes wrong, his wife-to-be could still have his child.

The couple moves its wedding up to shortly before the transplant. The husband dies during the procedure, which is only five months after the wedding.

Two years after his death, his widow is artificially inseminated, and she gives birth to a daughter. The mother files for Social Security benefits on behalf of her daughter, but is denied them because Iowa law at the time does not recognize that the girl had a relationship with her father, because she did not have a relationship with him at the time of his death.

In May 2011, the Iowa Legislature passed a bill to allow children conceived posthumously to receive inheritance rights. Unfortunately, the bill does not apply retroactively.

This is one of those situations that should be remedied by the legislature or proposed by someone in a position of influence to allow a retroactive fitting of a law to benefit those it “should.” This girl, now 8 years old, might not have known her father while he was alive, but her father certainly wanted to know her.

And that brings up the last bit that makes this story so touching: There are court records showing that the husband bequeathed the sperm to his wife for the purpose of having their child; the documents also acknowledge and accept any paternity and support for any child that should be conceived through the use of the sperm.

This doesn’t appear to be someone trying to abuse the system for gain. The man wanted for his children to be provided for in the case of an accident.

So, the father wanted to have a child with the woman he loved. His life was in danger and he prepared, in a fairly responsible manner, to allow for the creation of a life that otherwise he would have shared with his wife, and it was in vain.

The law is the law, and sometimes we complain about its impact because we don’t like it or we are heavily involved in one of the many hot-button issues flying across the headlines of media. This situation is one that will be overlooked for the most part. Hardly anyone will raise a cry about this.

But take a moment away from your life to think if this happened to you or someone close to you. Contact a politician through an email, or write a letter to your local paper, or even in your blog, to address your feelings if you feel this girl should be granted the benefits that would currently be due to her thanks to a loving father who passed away before he could meet his child.

Finding a way to fix this likely won’t help you, or anyone you ever know. This problem has been fixed, and others will not have to deal with a law that was a mistaken safeguard in the first place.

Maybe everything will work out down the line somehow. But doesn’t it make sense to allow the girl to receive benefits now? Even if the actual payout isn’t entirely retroactive, from a compassionate point of view, from a human point of view, this girl deserves to gain what other children conceived artificially will now receive.

There are many laws on the books that should have been dealt with earlier, but aren’t noticed or addressed because the situation where they do damage is not a common occurrence. But that is little reason to have them continue, to let them lie in wait to harm someone in the future; particularly when a child is in question.

It is difficult to think, legally or otherwise, that a child not yet born could be understood to be the offspring of someone. But couples hope for children every day. They imagine names and think about schools and the trials and tribulations that they might have to undertake to make their future child’s life a happy and free one.

Patti Beeler will not have a life, physically, with her husband of raising her daughter, nor will her daughter know growing up with the man that wanted so greatly to have a child. Money won’t make up for this, but her father wanted his child’s life to be as comfortable as possible, and he tried to ensure as he went in for a procedure where his life was at stake to make certain there was some form of money to help in the case of his death.

His hopes have been shot down by a court ruling. Hopefully, be it through the efforts of others or further legal action, his final gift to his daughter won’t be denied.