Post-Humous Reproduction Debate: Social Security Commissioner

Things that I am now sure of after this debate: More information and more points of view only make these topics more confusing.
In this simulation, I played the part of a Social Security Commissioner, on the pro-limitations side to post-humous reproduction. From the governmental/economical aspect, post-humous reproduction only poses financial problems when discerning whether or not a woman is getting pregnant with the sperm of a dead man. Does she really feel like he would want her to be using her sperm? If so, does that mean that the child is 'dependant' on the man, thus receiving benefits from his side? How long can one be allowed to wait before the frozen sperm is used?
Being part of the government, I obviously leaned on the side of strict consent and regulations before one would undergo post-humous reproduction. What if the man did not want his sperm to be used? Problems that arise from this type of reproduction can be limited if there is layers and layers of consent, a notion that the couple was trying to have a child before a partner's death (trying for IVF), and a time limit on the usage of the sperm. In my position, I am just trying to make sure that every one's rights are recognized.
In the 'pro-restriction' group, it was difficult to come up with a generalized regulatory standard that we all agreed on since we had a couple religious leaders on our side (Catholic priest and a Presbyterian priest). The legal characters, like myself, could not be influenced by moral or religious sways, because we could only represent justice and humane rights, including autonomy.
This exercise was helpful because I had to delineate the different roles in my head, taking each person as one mindset, focusing on certain issues and completely disregarding others. I will have to be able to turn off some parts of my brain for some parts of analysis, but still keep my personal views intact.