Why we should fight for our rights...

Where to even begin?? I was astounded that this was actually a true story! Some legislators in Georgia are trying to get what they are calling Bill 169 passed.

Here is what Mel had on her blog that I am passing on...

"According to Resolve, the National Infertility Association, Bill 169 aims to
limit the number of embryos transferred during an IVF cycle, and ban the fertilization of any eggs in excess of the number allowed to be transferred. Even if more eggs are produced, they could not be fertilized and cryopreserved for future attempts at pregnancy. In patients under 40, physicians would be allowed to fertilize and transfer only two embryos, and in women over age 40, no more than three embryos. These limits do not meet ASRM guidelines on the number of embryos to transfer, and would affect patients access to care in Georgia. SB 169 would also eliminate any compensation for donor gametes, such as donor egg and donor sperm, severely limiting the number of available donors.

What does this mean in simple terms? And it should be noted that no legislation is being passed to make IVF affordable to the average person who needs to utilize it--Georgia residents do not have mandated health care coverage for infertility.

• Therefore, citizens will be paying out of pocket (the average IVF cycle costs a little under $10,000) for each cycle.
• That only two or three eggs will be allowed to be fertilized regardless of how many eggs are collected during retrieval. Regardless of the patient's history or the natural attrition rate with fertilization.
• That every embryo created must be transferred. There will be no cryopreservation of embryos.
• Only two embryos can ever be transferred at one time to a woman under 40. Regardless of quality (for those who don't know, embryos are graded in terms of quality). A maximum of three embryos can be transferred in a woman over 40. Of course, you may not have any embryos to transfer if you only fertilized two eggs due to the attrition rate.
• A complete ban on financial compensation for those who undergo risky procedures in order to donate their gametes thereby ensuring that the available donor gamete pool is greatly reduced.
• It prohibits stem-cell research from leftover embryos."

So I took it upon myself to do a little research. The people who came drafted this bill are from an organization called the BDF or the BioEthics Defense Fund.

This is what the site for BDF says about this bill...There are drafting it in correlation with the National Catholic BioEthics Center.

The intense “Octomom” news coverage has highlighted the moral and social
problems inherent in the powerful and unregulated IVF industry.

BDF Senior Counsel Dorinda Bordlee stated, “this bill seeks to address a host
of problems in addition to the currently highlighted abuse of transferring high
numbers of embryos into the womb of a single, unemployed woman.”

Bordlee said that “the unregulated IVF industry has facilitated many abuses
including destructive human embryo research, human cloning attempts and the
heartbreak surrounding legal custody battles over the fate of cryopreserved
human embryos when couples divorce.”

Bordlee hopes that the “Octomom” story will encourage women to learn about Naprotechnology, a branch of
gynecology that ethically and effectively identifies and treats the root causes
of infertility to help women achieve pregnancy, rather than creating human life
in the lab.

A statement by Fr. Thomas Berg, L.C., Ph.D., of the Westchester
Institute for Ethics and the Human Person concluded that the BDF drafted
bill is “an incremental approach aimed at minimizing the harm done [and] is an
essential tool for undermining the greater evils in our culture.”

Here are some parts taken directly from the bill:

19-7-62. (valuable consideration=payment)
No person or entity shall give
or receive valuable consideration, offer to give or receive
valuable
consideration, or advertise for the giving or receiving of valuable
consideration
for the provision of gametes or in vitro human embryos. This
Code section shall not
apply to regulate or prohibit the procurement of
gametes for the treatment of infertility
being experienced by the patient
from whom the gametes are being derived.

19-7-64.
(a) A living in vitro human embryo is a biological human
being who is not the property
of any person or
entity. The fertility physician and the medical facility that
employs the
physician owe a high duty of care to the living in vitro human
embryo. Any contractual
provision identifying the living in vitro embryo as
the property of any party shall be null
and void. The in vitro human embryo
shall not be intentionally destroyed for any purpose
by any person or entity
or through the actions of such person or entity.
(b) An in vitro human embryo
that fails to show any sign of life over a 36 hour period
outside a state of
cryopreservation shall be considered no longer living.
19-7-65.
Only
medical facilities meeting the standards of the American Society for
Reproductive
Medicine and the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists shall cause the
fertilization of an in vitro human embryo. A
person who engages in the creation of in
vitro human embryos shall be
qualified as a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine
in this state and
shall possess specialized training and skill in artificial
reproductive
technology in conformity with the standards established by the
American Society for
Reproductive Medicine or the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

In the interest of reducing the risk of complications for both the mother
and the
transferred in vitro human embryos, including the risk of preterm
birth associated with
higher-order multiple gestations, a person or entity
performing in vitro fertilization shall
limit the number of in vitro human
embryos created in a single cycle to the number to be
transferred in that
cycle in accord with Code Section 19-7-67.
19-7-67.
(a) Where a woman
under age 40 is to receive treatment using her own eggs or embryos
created
using her own eggs, whether fresh or previously cryopreserved, at the time
of
transfer no person or entity shall transfer more than two embryos in any
treatment cycle,
regardless of the procedure used.
(b) Where a woman age
40 or over is to receive treatment using her own eggs or embryos
created
using her own eggs, whether fresh or previously cryopreserved, at the time
of
transfer no person or entity shall transfer more than three embryos in any
treatment cycle,
regardless of the procedure used.
(c) Where a woman is to
receive treatment using donated eggs or adopted embryos, no
person or entity
shall transfer more than two donated eggs or two adopted embryos in
any
treatment cycle, regardless of the woman's age at the time of transfer
and regardless of
the procedure used.
19-7-68.
In disputes arising
between any parties regarding the in vitro human embryo, the
judicial
standard for resolving such disputes shall be the best interest of
the in vitro human
embryo.

All facilities providing assisted reproductive technologies shall, at
least 24 hours prior to
obtaining a signed contract for services, provide
patients with informed consent as
required by law and obtain a signed
disclosure form before services commence. In
addition to medical risks and
information on outcome and success rates, the informed
consent materials
shall state in plain language the parental rights and duties of the
donors,
as well as their legal rights and duties regarding the disposition of
in vitro human
embryos that were not transferred due to either of the
fertility patient's death, divorce,
abandonment, or dispute over the custody
of the in vitro human embryo.

I have so many things I want to say on this post, but I am going to wait for
a later one to share my feelings. The point is even though this was tabled
today, it will come up again, and we need to get our point across that it is not
okay for the government to do this. For more information, see the Resolve
sight, or these blogs...

http://prayingforalittleone.blogspot.com/2009/03/georgia-bill-seeks-to-end-ivf.html

http://stirrup-queens.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-you-should-be-worried-about-georgia.html