It was inevitable that the trainwreck that is "octomom" Nadya Suleman would spur calls to regulate reproductive technology — and offer plenty of chances for politicians to grandstand on a headine-grabbing issue.

Georgia state Sen. Ralph Hudgens (R-Of Course) was one of the first to get in on the action, introducing legislation to create limits on the number of embryos that can be transferred to two for a woman under 40 and three for a woman over 40. The across-the-board cap has been widely criticized by infertility specialists, who argue that decisions on how many embryos to transfer must be made on an invidual basis that considers the quality of the embryos, the mother's health and specific fertility problems, and other issues.

But Hudgens' SB 169, which faced a committee hearing this morning, would go much further than simply attempting to keep possibly unstable, unemployed women with six children from having eight more at the same time while living on the public dole. ...

First, the bill would eliminate all forms of payment for gamete (i.e. egg and sperm) donation. No payment for anonymous egg and sperm donors means drastically fewer anonymous donors. Many lesbians use anonymous sperm donors, and many gay men use anonymous egg donors and a surrogate, not only because they may not have someone in their lives to ask to donate, but also because those donors automatically give up parental rights to any children born as a result of their donation.

Using gametes donated by known donors would mean many lesbian and gay parents would have to then ask a court to sever the donor's parental rights — cumbersome and costly for prospective parents who already have to pay out of pocket for either insemination or in vitro fertilization, since these procedures are not covered by health insurance.

But added costs and more difficulty finding donors may be the least of the concerns of lesbian and gay parents should Hudgens' bill pass. Note this important section: "The creation of an in vitro human embryo shall be solely for the purpose of initiating a human pregnancy by means of transfer to the uterus of a human female for the treatment of human infertility." [emphasis added]

Ostensibly this section would forbid the creation of embryos for cloning or stem cell research. But who gets to decide what constitutes "human infertility"? Is the mere absence of having a partner with whom you want or are able to create an embryo enough?

Labels: donor conception, fertility treatment

posted by Eve at 12:35 PM | link

<< Home