Are you worried about the end of reproductive rights?

[Anonymous]

I don't see IVF going away entirely, but I could see certain restrictions that will make it more difficult and/or expensive in the future in states that also ban abortion. For instance, I am sure that some religious conservatives don't like the idea of PGT testing because those embryos are automatically discarded. Others may insist that only one or two eggs be fertilized at a time because that is how you prevent excess embryos that will ultimately be discarded.

[Anonymous]

If personhood bills pass in the wake of Jackson Women's Health, IVF will be significantly more expensive and difficult - if not banned outright.

Storage, transfer, destruction, etc. of embryos would be carefully legislated and incredibly onerous for practices and patients.

Don't kid yourself, folks, This is only the beginning of the religious zealots' total ban on reproductive rights. They view this as the starting point and they will not be happy until reproductive freedoms are banned at a national level, IVF is out the door, and personhood laws are passed and implemented in all 50 states.

There is no compromise with the crazies so you better make sure that you vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/alito-roe-draft-leak-abortion-congress-federal-ban.html

Congress is already weighing its post-Roe options. As of this month, 19 senators and more than 100 representatives—all Republicans—have cosponsored sweeping legislation that would grant legal personhood from the “moment of fertilization.” This law would prohibit all abortions at every stage of pregnancy, as well as many common IVF procedures, by granting due process and equal protection rights to fetuses and embryos. Other more incremental bills would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines to help her terminate a pregnancy without parental consent. At a bare minimum, Republicans appear dead set on enacting a federal ban at 15 or 20 weeks, nullifying state laws that allow abortion later in pregnancy.

I read the actual proposed legislation and here is what it says:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed
8 to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of
9 her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or
10 a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of
11 preventing fertilization.

The pill and IUD inhibit/prevent implantation. They would be subject to bans under the criteria listed above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/alito-roe-draft-leak-abortion-congress-federal-ban.html

Congress is already weighing its post-Roe options. As of this month, 19 senators and more than 100 representatives—all Republicans—have cosponsored sweeping legislation that would grant legal personhood from the “moment of fertilization.” This law would prohibit all abortions at every stage of pregnancy, as well as many common IVF procedures, by granting due process and equal protection rights to fetuses and embryos. Other more incremental bills would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines to help her terminate a pregnancy without parental consent. At a bare minimum, Republicans appear dead set on enacting a federal ban at 15 or 20 weeks, nullifying state laws that allow abortion later in pregnancy.

I read the actual proposed legislation and here is what it says:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed
8 to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of
9 her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or
10 a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of
11 preventing fertilization.

NP here.

If you think for one second that overturning roe v wade won’t threaten IVF treatments, you have your head in the sand. Plenty of state legislators believe that life begins at conception and will do whatever they can to push that belief on others, even if many won’t admit it at this point (although many do).

It’s hard to determine that for sure. I was just told that this legislation would disallow IVF. However, I went to go read the actual legislation and that isn’t at all what it says.

Hard to determine what? That conservative legislatures believe life begins at conception and want to pass legislation to prevent ivf? It’s not hard to determine that at all. I just did a google search on it to show you some evidence but there is so much that I got overwhelmed and couldn’t choose one to show you.

You know that lots of conservative legislators believe life begins at conception. You know that they are willing to legislate their religious beliefs. Why would you think they wouldn’t touch IVF? What evidence do you have that it’s safe?

Also:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ivf+personhood+law&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

https://www.google.com/search?q=legislation+banning+ivf&client=safari&hl=en-us&sxsrf=ALiCzsb9QEHIyuwKaEmjbOujVGnSCxVgNQ%3A1651681197657&ei=radyYu7VJ6XN1QHsmKKIAg&oq=&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAEYAjIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzoECCMQJzoLCAAQsQMQgwEQkQI6BQgAEIAEOgsILhCABBCxAxCDAToICAAQgAQQsQM6CwguEIAEELEDENQCOgQIABBDOgUIABCRAjoKCC4QsQMQ1AIQQzoECAAQA0oECEEYAFCFHFjWMGC4QmgHcAF4AIABS4gBwgKSAQE1mAEAoAEBsAEPwAEB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp

https://www.google.com/search?q=republican+ivf&client=safari&hl=en-us&sxsrf=ALiCzsY8Qatlv2cu6SHw6-fnjvYaMAlKTg%3A1651681245908&ei=3adyYraNN-i7ytMPvtGFiA0&oq=&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAEYBTIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJ0oECEEYAFAAWABg1RxoAnABeACAAQCIAQCSAQCYAQCgAQGwAQ_AAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp

[Anonymous]

Yes, of course, and anyone who thinks otherwise is willfully ignorant.

[Anonymous]

You know what they won't come for? Vasectomies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go back and forth on this. I suspect it's more likely they will turn their rage and desire to control upon people in the LGBTQ+ communities - I know many in the GOP would love to overturn the right for non-heterosexual couples to marry, for instance. But yeah, I certainly think it's possible that IVF, surrogacy (maybe especially surrogacy), and other reproductive technologies are in danger, if only as a sort of side effect of their current rampage. I also think it's possible that first we might see laws restricting unmarried people or same-sex couples from using IVF. I think they would also go for preventing the destruction of unused embryos...as a PP said, this is the top of a slippery slope.

Also what happens if a woman does IVF and creates say 12 embryos. Are they required to implant them all? Wouldn't that follow GOP rhetoric regarding life at conception?

PP and yeah, I think so - either the woman would be required to implant them all (and no selective reduction, certainly, no matter how many implanted), or forced to "donate" them to another couple - probably a married white Christian couple who feels entitled to someone else's children. I will never forget when a good friend of mine had an abortion in college and someone we knew told her that was so selfish because this third person had a friend who was a "good Christian woman" who deserved that child and my friend should "have just had the baby and given it to her."

[Anonymous]

This is like one big baby boomer FU to those of us who are still young enough to have babies. They got their sexual revolution, but we can't have ours!

[Anonymous]

How any woman can vote for a Republican is foreign to me. Even if you are too old to have kids this affects MILLIONS of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/alito-roe-draft-leak-abortion-congress-federal-ban.html

Congress is already weighing its post-Roe options. As of this month, 19 senators and more than 100 representatives—all Republicans—have cosponsored sweeping legislation that would grant legal personhood from the “moment of fertilization.” This law would prohibit all abortions at every stage of pregnancy, as well as many common IVF procedures, by granting due process and equal protection rights to fetuses and embryos. Other more incremental bills would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines to help her terminate a pregnancy without parental consent. At a bare minimum, Republicans appear dead set on enacting a federal ban at 15 or 20 weeks, nullifying state laws that allow abortion later in pregnancy.

I read the actual proposed legislation and here is what it says:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed
8 to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of
9 her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or
10 a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of
11 preventing fertilization.

The pill and IUD inhibit/prevent implantation. They would be subject to bans under the criteria listed above.

Nothing in that criteria prohibits contraception. What on earth are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Honestly, I think their next attack will be on LGBTQ not contraceptives or fertility treatments.

High-level GOP people benefit from both of the latter.

Most are still very anti-Gay, though.

As a married lesbian with 4 kids, the thought of this terrifies me. I'm not old enough to remember how things were gays in the earlier years when you had to mostly be in the closet for your safety, but I am old enough to remember the fight for marriage equality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I think their next attack will be on LGBTQ not contraceptives or fertility treatments.

High-level GOP people benefit from both of the latter.

Most are still very anti-Gay, though.

As a married lesbian with 4 kids, the thought of this terrifies me. I'm not old enough to remember how things were gays in the earlier years when you had to mostly be in the closet for your safety, but I am old enough to remember the fight for marriage equality.

What makes you think that they cannot do both?

Plus, state and federal legislators RIGHT NOW are drafting new bills to curb further rights and push bills recognizing personhood at fertilization. Come June, wait for the onslaught of bills. This is just the beginning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I think their next attack will be on LGBTQ not contraceptives or fertility treatments.

High-level GOP people benefit from both of the latter.

Most are still very anti-Gay, though.

As a married lesbian with 4 kids, the thought of this terrifies me. I'm not old enough to remember how things were gays in the earlier years when you had to mostly be in the closet for your safety, but I am old enough to remember the fight for marriage equality.

I think it'll be both, specifically LGBTQ access to fertility treatments/adoptions and medical care in general, then marriage equality. Not saying IVF is illegal, it's just that you have to be in a "stable" relationship to have access to it. And then stable starts to mean married starts to mean heterosexual etc.

-Fellow lesbian mom terrified of what's to come

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go back and forth on this. I suspect it's more likely they will turn their rage and desire to control upon people in the LGBTQ+ communities - I know many in the GOP would love to overturn the right for non-heterosexual couples to marry, for instance. But yeah, I certainly think it's possible that IVF, surrogacy (maybe especially surrogacy), and other reproductive technologies are in danger, if only as a sort of side effect of their current rampage. I also think it's possible that first we might see laws restricting unmarried people or same-sex couples from using IVF. I think they would also go for preventing the destruction of unused embryos...as a PP said, this is the top of a slippery slope.

Also what happens if a woman does IVF and creates say 12 embryos. Are they required to implant them all? Wouldn't that follow GOP rhetoric regarding life at conception?

PP and yeah, I think so - either the woman would be required to implant them all (and no selective reduction, certainly, no matter how many implanted), or forced to "donate" them to another couple - probably a married white Christian couple who feels entitled to someone else's children. I will never forget when a good friend of mine had an abortion in college and someone we knew told her that was so selfish because this third person had a friend who was a "good Christian woman" who deserved that child and my friend should "have just had the baby and given it to her."

Stop making stuff up. It detracts from what is actually going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/alito-roe-draft-leak-abortion-congress-federal-ban.html

Congress is already weighing its post-Roe options. As of this month, 19 senators and more than 100 representatives—all Republicans—have cosponsored sweeping legislation that would grant legal personhood from the “moment of fertilization.” This law would prohibit all abortions at every stage of pregnancy, as well as many common IVF procedures, by granting due process and equal protection rights to fetuses and embryos. Other more incremental bills would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines to help her terminate a pregnancy without parental consent. At a bare minimum, Republicans appear dead set on enacting a federal ban at 15 or 20 weeks, nullifying state laws that allow abortion later in pregnancy.

I read the actual proposed legislation and here is what it says:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed
8 to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of
9 her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or
10 a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of
11 preventing fertilization.

The pill and IUD inhibit/prevent implantation. They would be subject to bans under the criteria listed above.

Nothing in that criteria prohibits contraception. What on earth are you talking about?

There are three ways that a hormonal birth control pill or IUD prevents conception. They work in unison so that if one or two of them fail, there’ always the other. The first way the pill works is that it adjusts hormones to prevent ovulation in the first place. The second is that it changes the cervical mucus so that it is harder for sperm to make it through to the uterus, thus making it difficult to actually fertilize an egg if ovulation did occur. The last thing the pill does to prevent conception is that it thins the uterine lining so that if an egg DOES drop, and it IS fertilized, it won’t implant successfully.

Something like the copper IUD makes the uterine environment inhospitable, so theoretically an egg could still be fertilized, the embryo just wouldn’t make it.

This is why people are concerned about how the decision on Roe might ultimately affect birth control options. If you extend the “life at conception” logic, people who believe a fertilized egg is a life will also have a problem with BCP’s, hormonal IUD, and copper IUD. Contraceptives like barrier methods are still acceptable under this logic, but they are the least reliable.