Are you worried about the end of reproductive rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone worried about the bans on Plan B? This seems more pertinent to IVF because it considers life to begin at fertilization. I'm hoping the distinction will be made between a fertilized egg in the body versus one that is outside.

Why would that distinction matter? An embryo that is in the body but hasn't implanted in the uterus is no more a viable pregnancy than an embryo in a petri dish.

Do you know how many embryos were placed in my uterus that never implanted? Am I supposed to have had ceremonies for the fetal remains from all of those failed IVF cycles I went through?

I think the reality is that the legislators rushing to pass anti-abortion regulations haven't thought this true. So IVF will become illegal unintentionally long before someone drafts an anti-IVF bill. It already would be illegal, most likely, under several of the bills already floating around that define life as starting at conception. I mean, some of these draft bills outlaw D&Cs for ectopic pregnancies, so we can be pretty sure no one has done their homework.

PP here. I'm not arguing with you because like you I understand science. I'm trying to get into the minds of the people passing these laws and our Supreme Court. Maybe they are more likely based on theology to consider fertilized eggs outside the womb to not be a life?

My point is, they aren't thinking at all. And to the extent they are, they are taking absolute stances on the personhood of an embryo regardless of how it would impact mothers. TBH, I don't think that they truly have such extreme views, but nuance in this area has become politically unviable.

PP here. Fair enough point. So what do we do as infertility patients? Try and get pregnant as quickly as possible with the desired number of children before we lose all control of our embryos even if that's not what's best for our health? Make sure are embryos are stored in a liberal state that would try to protect our rights? What is everyone's game plan?

You should be fighting like hell for reproductive rights for everyone. Even if you rush ahead now and have a baby before this is all banned, as you really going to say eff you, I got mine to every person facing infertility after you?

No, I wouldn't. My heart goes out to everyone in this situation. I vote blue up and down the ticket because this is the consequence of a Republican president stacking the court with fundamentalists.

It's an uncomfortable fact but women who vote red allowed this to happen. Particularly white married women with children. They're all good so why should they worry about the women growing up under these new policies?

So you are allowed to vote but white married women are not. Misogynist much?

And racist.

They can vote. It's their right. I just wish they could open their eyes to the consequences of their actions. I believe you're a troll so I'm going to stop engaging. I was hoping to connect with other women with infertility, but it seems this thread is drawing attention from other boards.

You damn right it is their right. You would to stop their right if it doesn’t go your way.

Republicans always project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone worried about the bans on Plan B? This seems more pertinent to IVF because it considers life to begin at fertilization. I'm hoping the distinction will be made between a fertilized egg in the body versus one that is outside.

Why would that distinction matter? An embryo that is in the body but hasn't implanted in the uterus is no more a viable pregnancy than an embryo in a petri dish.

Do you know how many embryos were placed in my uterus that never implanted? Am I supposed to have had ceremonies for the fetal remains from all of those failed IVF cycles I went through?

I think the reality is that the legislators rushing to pass anti-abortion regulations haven't thought this true. So IVF will become illegal unintentionally long before someone drafts an anti-IVF bill. It already would be illegal, most likely, under several of the bills already floating around that define life as starting at conception. I mean, some of these draft bills outlaw D&Cs for ectopic pregnancies, so we can be pretty sure no one has done their homework.

PP here. I'm not arguing with you because like you I understand science. I'm trying to get into the minds of the people passing these laws and our Supreme Court. Maybe they are more likely based on theology to consider fertilized eggs outside the womb to not be a life?

My point is, they aren't thinking at all. And to the extent they are, they are taking absolute stances on the personhood of an embryo regardless of how it would impact mothers. TBH, I don't think that they truly have such extreme views, but nuance in this area has become politically unviable.

PP here. Fair enough point. So what do we do as infertility patients? Try and get pregnant as quickly as possible with the desired number of children before we lose all control of our embryos even if that's not what's best for our health? Make sure are embryos are stored in a liberal state that would try to protect our rights? What is everyone's game plan?

You should be fighting like hell for reproductive rights for everyone. Even if you rush ahead now and have a baby before this is all banned, as you really going to say eff you, I got mine to every person facing infertility after you?

No, I wouldn't. My heart goes out to everyone in this situation. I vote blue up and down the ticket because this is the consequence of a Republican president stacking the court with fundamentalists.

It's an uncomfortable fact but women who vote red allowed this to happen. Particularly white married women with children. They're all good so why should they worry about the women growing up under these new policies?

So you are allowed to vote but white married women are not. Misogynist much?

And racist.

They can vote. It's their right. I just wish they could open their eyes to the consequences of their actions. I believe you're a troll so I'm going to stop engaging. I was hoping to connect with other women with infertility, but it seems this thread is drawing attention from other boards.

You damn right it is their right. You would to stop their right if it doesn’t go your way.

Republicans always project.

Says a misogynist and racist troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone worried about the bans on Plan B? This seems more pertinent to IVF because it considers life to begin at fertilization. I'm hoping the distinction will be made between a fertilized egg in the body versus one that is outside.

Why would that distinction matter? An embryo that is in the body but hasn't implanted in the uterus is no more a viable pregnancy than an embryo in a petri dish.

Do you know how many embryos were placed in my uterus that never implanted? Am I supposed to have had ceremonies for the fetal remains from all of those failed IVF cycles I went through?

I think the reality is that the legislators rushing to pass anti-abortion regulations haven't thought this true. So IVF will become illegal unintentionally long before someone drafts an anti-IVF bill. It already would be illegal, most likely, under several of the bills already floating around that define life as starting at conception. I mean, some of these draft bills outlaw D&Cs for ectopic pregnancies, so we can be pretty sure no one has done their homework.

PP here. I'm not arguing with you because like you I understand science. I'm trying to get into the minds of the people passing these laws and our Supreme Court. Maybe they are more likely based on theology to consider fertilized eggs outside the womb to not be a life?

My point is, they aren't thinking at all. And to the extent they are, they are taking absolute stances on the personhood of an embryo regardless of how it would impact mothers. TBH, I don't think that they truly have such extreme views, but nuance in this area has become politically unviable.

PP here. Fair enough point. So what do we do as infertility patients? Try and get pregnant as quickly as possible with the desired number of children before we lose all control of our embryos even if that's not what's best for our health? Make sure are embryos are stored in a liberal state that would try to protect our rights? What is everyone's game plan?

You should be fighting like hell for reproductive rights for everyone. Even if you rush ahead now and have a baby before this is all banned, as you really going to say eff you, I got mine to every person facing infertility after you?

No, I wouldn't. My heart goes out to everyone in this situation. I vote blue up and down the ticket because this is the consequence of a Republican president stacking the court with fundamentalists.

Oh, so you are a communist.

No, I support the government keeping it's hands off of people's right to their own bodies and to marriage with someone of their choosing. I'm a fiscal conservative, but I can't bring myself to vote R because the part is run by fringe lunatics.

And you also believe that the Supreme Court should only represent one side.

And there we go. This poster just implicitly admitted their goal is to see roe overturned and they don’t care is it comes at the expense of access to fertility treatments.

Trying to deflect from your communist ideals.

Access to reproductive care, including fertility treatments, is a “communist ideal”?

I would think you were a troll pretending to be anti-abortion except I’ve seen this sentiments sincerely expressed by anti-abortion advocates far too often.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worry about how they will interpret the abortion restrictions as applied to embryos. If we end up with multiple embryos, will we be considered aborting them if we don’t decide to use them? Will IF docs stop working in the states where the laws are threatening to them?

Absolutely. They are going to take the millions and millions of embryos frozen in the US and force them into women. The government will pay for the transfers. See how much sense this makes??

Right, it doesn’t make sense because what you made up is absurd.

DP. The government doesn’t have to force you to transfer every embryo, they can just make you criminally culpable if any of your embryos die from parental neglect by not implanting them or placing them for adoption. Will you be willing to face a 10-year prison sentence if something goes wrong with your frozen embryos?

Still waiting for you to cite all this as you promised. And cite where you say the government will force millions of frozen embryos into women.
Waiting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone worried about the bans on Plan B? This seems more pertinent to IVF because it considers life to begin at fertilization. I'm hoping the distinction will be made between a fertilized egg in the body versus one that is outside.

Why would that distinction matter? An embryo that is in the body but hasn't implanted in the uterus is no more a viable pregnancy than an embryo in a petri dish.

Do you know how many embryos were placed in my uterus that never implanted? Am I supposed to have had ceremonies for the fetal remains from all of those failed IVF cycles I went through?

I think the reality is that the legislators rushing to pass anti-abortion regulations haven't thought this true. So IVF will become illegal unintentionally long before someone drafts an anti-IVF bill. It already would be illegal, most likely, under several of the bills already floating around that define life as starting at conception. I mean, some of these draft bills outlaw D&Cs for ectopic pregnancies, so we can be pretty sure no one has done their homework.

PP here. I'm not arguing with you because like you I understand science. I'm trying to get into the minds of the people passing these laws and our Supreme Court. Maybe they are more likely based on theology to consider fertilized eggs outside the womb to not be a life?

My point is, they aren't thinking at all. And to the extent they are, they are taking absolute stances on the personhood of an embryo regardless of how it would impact mothers. TBH, I don't think that they truly have such extreme views, but nuance in this area has become politically unviable.

PP here. Fair enough point. So what do we do as infertility patients? Try and get pregnant as quickly as possible with the desired number of children before we lose all control of our embryos even if that's not what's best for our health? Make sure are embryos are stored in a liberal state that would try to protect our rights? What is everyone's game plan?

You should be fighting like hell for reproductive rights for everyone. Even if you rush ahead now and have a baby before this is all banned, as you really going to say eff you, I got mine to every person facing infertility after you?

No, I wouldn't. My heart goes out to everyone in this situation. I vote blue up and down the ticket because this is the consequence of a Republican president stacking the court with fundamentalists.

Oh, so you are a communist.

No, I support the government keeping it's hands off of people's right to their own bodies and to marriage with someone of their choosing. I'm a fiscal conservative, but I can't bring myself to vote R because the part is run by fringe lunatics.

And you also believe that the Supreme Court should only represent one side.

And there we go. This poster just implicitly admitted their goal is to see roe overturned and they don’t care is it comes at the expense of access to fertility treatments.

Trying to deflect from your communist ideals.

Access to reproductive care, including fertility treatments, is a “communist ideal”?

I would think you were a troll pretending to be anti-abortion except I’ve seen this sentiments sincerely expressed by anti-abortion advocates far too often.

Try harder to deflect from your criticism to not having a one sided Supreme Court. Communist prick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm definitely nervous. I'm hoping any embryos created before a new law are grandfathered in.

Grandfathered into what? Once those embryos are declared people, you will have to either implant all of them or put your unused embryos up for adoption, because any other choice that results in their destruction will be chargeable as homicide.

Of maybe they could be frozen in perpetuity?

What facility is going to provide those storage services when any error or mechanical failure that leads to the destruction of embryos could be changed with negligent homicide?

True but IVF is a major industry. SG and CCRM won't go down without a fight (lobbying, etc.)? Right?

States will have a greater interest in finding adoptive parents for surrendered infants so that the state doesn’t have to be financially responsible for their care. The states will be quite happy to see fertility procedures banned so they can tell couples dealing with infertility their choice is to die childless and alone, or adopt this baby that may be drug addicted, or may have fetal alcohol syndrome, or has a birth defect that will cause cognitive impairment. The state will bank on your desperation to have a parent to get all of those kids off their hands.

My adopted child is neither drug addicted, has fetal alcohol syndrome, or any birth defects. To top it off, he is a monumentally better human bring than you are.

I didn’t say what the states will do is right. None of what they’re trying to do with overturning Roe, banning abortion and banning contraception is right. But there’s no use in pretending that people struggling with infertility won’t be pawns in this also.

I mean, you’re not honestly trying to pretend every children placed for adoption is 100% healthy at birth, right?

You’re not honestly trying to pretend that every child placed for adoption is drug addicted, has fetal alcohol syndrome, or has birth defects that cause cognitive impairments? You did and f you.

That’s not what was said at all. You are just trying to deflect from the real threat to access to reproductive technology.

Yes you did.

DP. No one did that. But reality is that every year many infants go unadopted due to their significant existing health issue. When Amy Coney Barrett says there is a shortage of adoptable infants, she doesn’t mean there is a shortage of infants available for adoption, she means there is a shortage of infants people are willing to adopt. Yes, banning abortion may result in a small increase in healthy infants available for adoption, but the increase in available infants will disproportionately be ones with the kinds of health issues that many prospective adoptive parents are not comfortable taking on (which I am not judging, everyone has to know themselves on this). Those children typically come with significant health costs that the state will have to bear if these infants are not adopted, so the state will be motivated to incentivize people to adopt them. With that motive in play, anti-abortion politicians will have far less incentive to protect access to fertility treatments when the alternative is better for their anti-abortion goals.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who isn’t a partisan clown knows this doesn’t do anything to fertility treatment access. It doesn’t even ban abortion, it gives states the right to pass their own laws, and literally 0 states have tried to “ban” or “reduce” access to fertility treatments. If you’re going to try and scare people, atleast provide evidence. Are there any grownups in this forum anymore? Goddam you people are loony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who isn’t a partisan clown knows this doesn’t do anything to fertility treatment access. It doesn’t even ban abortion, it gives states the right to pass their own laws, and literally 0 states have tried to “ban” or “reduce” access to fertility treatments. If you’re going to try and scare people, atleast provide evidence. Are there any grownups in this forum anymore? Goddam you people are loony.

This. And honestly the IVF talk just distracts from what is actually going on. It’s hard for me to take anyone seriously who is talking about forcing women to implant embryos. I mean c’mon!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who isn’t a partisan clown knows this doesn’t do anything to fertility treatment access. It doesn’t even ban abortion, it gives states the right to pass their own laws, and literally 0 states have tried to “ban” or “reduce” access to fertility treatments. If you’re going to try and scare people, atleast provide evidence. Are there any grownups in this forum anymore? Goddam you people are loony.

Go look at the legislation moving forward in Louisiana to ban abortion from the moment of fertilization (not even implantation). Look at Missouri, whcih is looking to put a similar ban in place and to criminalize going out of state for medical procedures. Look at the dozen other states with trigger bans already in place that will automatically ban abortion when Roe is overturned, and another dozen with pre-Roe bans that were never repealed and will become enforceable again.

And then you have all of the Republican politicians tripping over each other to get to forefront of banning not just abortion for contraception as well. You think they care about protecting IVF?

Oh, and has Mitch McConnell come out and denied the reporting this weekend that he’s strategizing for a nationwide abortion ban?

Given your apparent ignorance about all of these facts, how could anyone take seriously your assurances that this won’t affect access to fertility treatments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm definitely nervous. I'm hoping any embryos created before a new law are grandfathered in.

Grandfathered into what? Once those embryos are declared people, you will have to either implant all of them or put your unused embryos up for adoption, because any other choice that results in their destruction will be chargeable as homicide.

Of maybe they could be frozen in perpetuity?

What facility is going to provide those storage services when any error or mechanical failure that leads to the destruction of embryos could be changed with negligent homicide?

True but IVF is a major industry. SG and CCRM won't go down without a fight (lobbying, etc.)? Right?

States will have a greater interest in finding adoptive parents for surrendered infants so that the state doesn’t have to be financially responsible for their care. The states will be quite happy to see fertility procedures banned so they can tell couples dealing with infertility their choice is to die childless and alone, or adopt this baby that may be drug addicted, or may have fetal alcohol syndrome, or has a birth defect that will cause cognitive impairment. The state will bank on your desperation to have a parent to get all of those kids off their hands.

I don't get why freezing indefinitely would suffice as a workaround. All of these embryos eventually die if not implanted, even if they are frozen. In fact, a pretty predictable percentage die each year of freezing.

All it would take -- and I am completely serious about this -- is for that workaround to be turned around and used for abortion. The provider isn't "killing" the fetus, just removing it to remain frozen until eventually reimplanted or something. And then you just wait, and it dies. Same as the non-implanted IVF embryos.

Please cite your sources. Embryos once frozen do not die because they do not grow. They are literally suspended in time. The loss that happens rarely is when you thaw to implant, but how would the embryo have a chance to implant at all I'd you don't thaw?

Sure, I will cite. The info isn't hard to find -- it will take me a couple of minutes

This post of yours, however, is a testament that you are clueless about the basic facts on which you base your political and moral arguments about reproductive rights and freedoms. Think about that.

Because you say something is a testament that someone is clueless doesn’t mean it is. Nothing of what you say means anything.

I mean, if you want to make a distinction between "become no longer a viable" and "die," then we can change the language. But you can't come up with a reason why it's wrong to freeze a fetus indefinitely but somehow perfectly fine to do it with an IVF embryo, can you?

Can you?

Still waiting for you to cite all your claims.

You missed the viability study above? Do you need me to screenshot this page and circle it for you in read?

So, now -- can you give the justification that makes freezing fetuses indefinitely wrong, given it's okay to do for IVF embryos and rate of viability doesn't really matter?

No, no, no. You need to cite all your wacky claims, cherry picker.

Ah. So you won't respond to the published study cited, and you won't answer questions.

Fair enough. Let it play out, and let's see what happens.

[Anonymous]

The same people who told us for 10 years (and more) that it was a waste of time to worry about abortion access because Roe would never be overturned are now trying to tel us not to worry about access to reproductive care because it will never be impacted. They were wrong about Roe, so we would be fools to listen to them now on reproductive care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who isn’t a partisan clown knows this doesn’t do anything to fertility treatment access. It doesn’t even ban abortion, it gives states the right to pass their own laws, and literally 0 states have tried to “ban” or “reduce” access to fertility treatments. If you’re going to try and scare people, atleast provide evidence. Are there any grownups in this forum anymore? Goddam you people are loony.

You merely have to look at countries where abortion is banned. Often IVF is banned as well for the same reasons. Life starts at the moment of conception. Creating embryos that aren’t immediately implanted means to those fundamentalists that those “babies” are being frozen. And not all of them will be used. And forget about not implanting embryos that are not healthy.

[Anonymous]

According to the constitution Having a child is a privilege not a right, however children have constitutional right to live. Don't shoot the messenger, you'll need an amendment to change that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm definitely nervous. I'm hoping any embryos created before a new law are grandfathered in.

Grandfathered into what? Once those embryos are declared people, you will have to either implant all of them or put your unused embryos up for adoption, because any other choice that results in their destruction will be chargeable as homicide.

Of maybe they could be frozen in perpetuity?

What facility is going to provide those storage services when any error or mechanical failure that leads to the destruction of embryos could be changed with negligent homicide?

True but IVF is a major industry. SG and CCRM won't go down without a fight (lobbying, etc.)? Right?

States will have a greater interest in finding adoptive parents for surrendered infants so that the state doesn’t have to be financially responsible for their care. The states will be quite happy to see fertility procedures banned so they can tell couples dealing with infertility their choice is to die childless and alone, or adopt this baby that may be drug addicted, or may have fetal alcohol syndrome, or has a birth defect that will cause cognitive impairment. The state will bank on your desperation to have a parent to get all of those kids off their hands.

I don't get why freezing indefinitely would suffice as a workaround. All of these embryos eventually die if not implanted, even if they are frozen. In fact, a pretty predictable percentage die each year of freezing.

All it would take -- and I am completely serious about this -- is for that workaround to be turned around and used for abortion. The provider isn't "killing" the fetus, just removing it to remain frozen until eventually reimplanted or something. And then you just wait, and it dies. Same as the non-implanted IVF embryos.

Please cite your sources. Embryos once frozen do not die because they do not grow. They are literally suspended in time. The loss that happens rarely is when you thaw to implant, but how would the embryo have a chance to implant at all I'd you don't thaw?

Sure, I will cite. The info isn't hard to find -- it will take me a couple of minutes

This post of yours, however, is a testament that you are clueless about the basic facts on which you base your political and moral arguments about reproductive rights and freedoms. Think about that.

Because you say something is a testament that someone is clueless doesn’t mean it is. Nothing of what you say means anything.

I mean, if you want to make a distinction between "become no longer a viable" and "die," then we can change the language. But you can't come up with a reason why it's wrong to freeze a fetus indefinitely but somehow perfectly fine to do it with an IVF embryo, can you?

Can you?

Still waiting for you to cite all your claims.

You missed the viability study above? Do you need me to screenshot this page and circle it for you in read?

So, now -- can you give the justification that makes freezing fetuses indefinitely wrong, given it's okay to do for IVF embryos and rate of viability doesn't really matter?

No, no, no. You need to cite all your wacky claims, cherry picker.

Ah. So you won't respond to the published study cited, and you won't answer questions.

Fair enough. Let it play out, and let's see what happens.

You didn’t cite your claims. None of them. Because you made them all up, just as I said. Now you’re trying to weasel out of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who isn’t a partisan clown knows this doesn’t do anything to fertility treatment access. It doesn’t even ban abortion, it gives states the right to pass their own laws, and literally 0 states have tried to “ban” or “reduce” access to fertility treatments. If you’re going to try and scare people, atleast provide evidence. Are there any grownups in this forum anymore? Goddam you people are loony.

This. And honestly the IVF talk just distracts from what is actually going on. It’s hard for me to take anyone seriously who is talking about forcing women to implant embryos. I mean c’mon!

Exactly, they’ve been asked to cite and can’t come up with anything.