A Georgia state bill that would have imposed severe limits on IVF, promoted as a measure to prevent future "Octomom" situations, is unlikely to be passed this year, according to observers. The proposed legislation, which has been sent to a senate subcommittee for further study, would have required doctors and fertility clinics to fertilize no more embryos than they planned to transfer into a woman, and would have limited the number to no more than two or three, depending upon the woman's age. Proponents have suggested that this kind of legislation is sorely needed to protect both women and taxpayers from situations like Nadya Suleman's, in which the transfer of a large number of embryos resulted in a case of super-multiples with no visible means of support.
And we can all get behind that, right?
Well, not so fast. As Slate's William Saletan pointed out in a column this week, the bill, S.B. 169, is really a backdoor attempt to impose the same kind of "personhood" rights on embryos and fetuses that a state legislature in North Dakota recently passed. Under the guise of imposing sanity on the Wild West atmosphere still prevailing in some fertility clinics (and yes, Octomom is pretty much Exhibit A for what's wrong in that world), S.B. 169 would penalize all fertility patients, ban stem-cell research and declare that legally an embryo has rights that should be paramount (over the rights of living, breathing human beings).
Since the stem-cell and "personhood" issues are both facets of the whole reproductive freedom issue and most people have already made up their minds how they feel about them, I think it's most interesting to see how S.B. 169, if it ever were passed, would effect regular people seeking IVF or other fertility treatments. Under the bill's provisions, a mother could only have 2-3 embryos transferred, and due to the bill's "fertilize only as many as you transfer" language, she could not produce other fertilized eggs that could then be frozen and used in subsequent cycles (which is how nearly all current IVF patients proceed). This would vastly reduce the likelihood of success of each IVF cycle since not all fertilized eggs become transferrable blastocycts, and not all of those transferred blastocycts become implanted embryos, and not all of those embryos stick around long enough to become human babies; the more non-medical limitations placedon the number of eggs fertilized, the smaller the pool for even potential success. And given the cost of each IVF cycle, couples would quickly find themselves priced out of the fertility game unless they got very lucky, very early on.
As Saletan says of the bill's limits on egg fertilization:
How does this restriction "protect the mother" and "reduce the risk
of complications" for her? It doesn't. If you wanted to protect the
woman, you might limit the number of embryos that could be transferred
to her womb, not the number that can be created in the dish. In fact,
by limiting the number that can be created, you increase her risk of
complications. The fewer eggs you fertilize, the lower your chances of
producing an embryo healthy enough to be transferred and carried to
term. That means a higher failure rate, which in turn means that women
will have to undergo more treatment cycles, with the corresponding
risks of ovarian hyperstimulation and advancing maternal age.
So
why limit the number of embryos created per cycle? Because the bill's
chief purpose isn't really to help women. It's to establish legal rights for embryos.
So don't be fooled. This kind of bill will no doubt make its debut in other state legislatures, particularly in states with a strong lobby against reproductive freedom and for embryo rights. If its advocates would come right out and say that's what they're fighting for, I'd have a lot more respect for them. Instead, by using impressive-sounding scientific language and making grand gestures toward women's health and taxpayer's dollars, they're trying to fool the public and use state legislative means to make an end run around Supreme Court precedent. As for women who only want a healthy baby or two, they become the innocent bystanders who stand to get hurt if bills like this pass.
More by this author:
Move Over, Booties! Here Come Knitted Boobies
Think Your Baby's Car Seat Is Safe? Think Again
California Daycare Closed; Worker Was Mocking Kids' Genitals
"Angels in Waiting" Apparently Still Waiting
