- Share This Post
- submit
- 0
-
Sparkle (0)
Figure out this math equation: "hands-off government" senator, Ralph Hudgens + Right to Life group = Bill 169, the piece of Georgia legislation that is being discussed in a committee hearing this morning. Bill 169, which seeks to impose limits on reproductive rights without regard to the actual people affected by these laws. All for the sake of stopping another set of octuplets from entering the world--since, as you know, higher order multiples is just as much a problem taxing the state of Georgia medical system as obesity and Gonorrhea.
Actually, sorry, the state is the 12th most problematic state in regards to obesity and it rocks out as the 5th most Gonorrhea infested state according to Georgia health statistics. Yet it is 21st in line--almost the midway point--of the 50 states in regards to twin births (no information was available about the rate of triplets and higher). Why not enact legislation restricting the caloric intake of citizens or making it a law that a barrier must be used during all sexual acts? Anything to lessen two greater health risks in the state of Georgia?
Because apparently Ralph Hudgens believes that the threat of octuplets is taxing the state's medical system more than state's higher-than-average rate of heart disease. Or it's higher-than-average rate of diabetes.
It is certainly more important to pass legislation concerning the number of embryos transferred during IVF than it is to pass legislation protecting children from firearm-related deaths. Georgia is a state without legislation on an assault weapons ban or trigger locks required to be sold or safe storage requirements.
But octuplets born via IVF will be the downfall of the great state of Georgia.
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.
Why is this legislation grabbing the attention of all Americans--even those outside of Georgia? Even those not struggling with infertility? Even those not currently trying to conceive?
Because it is what is called back-door politics--the creation of what the majority deem a reasonable bill (after all, what state wants to cover the tab Californians face in regards to the health of the octuplets?) in order to pave the way for additional legislation, in this case, to affect the ruling of Roe vs. Wade. By entering through the back-door, legislation can open up the front door by laying important foundations to helping overturn abortion law. It is no accident that this bill was drafted with help from the Right to Life movement.
It
