in fact, silber asserted in that case the plain meaning of the words do require further explanation try. trent and others contend that having someone's -- in your body via artificial insemination qualifies them as a sexually intimate partner partner. and that continued exposure to that person's -- for the purposes of getting pregnant pose no additional risk to the recipient, nor would it violate laws governing donation. the this argument is key for trent all freelance -- donors, but also because recipients who want work with a known -- donor but go through clinic, say, instead of the back seat of a volkswagen, could also forgo the costly freezing and six month quarantine that would otherwise be required prior to either ivf. this could also help eliminate requirements at some clinics for psychological evaluations, copies of the legal contracts, among other bureaucratic indignities. trent's interpretation than is actually the law of the land in his home state of california. meaning that state one home in 70 isn't achieved sexually intimate partner status for any given recipient pair. unfo