IVF embryos are people too

[Anonymous]

Help me out here… I have (successfully) gone through IVF so know that after egg harvesting attempts are made to fertilise all the eggs gathered. Then the embryo(s) most likely to be viable are identified and implanted into the mother’s womb. Is Alabama saying that ALL embryos should be implanted? How many babies do they think a mother can safely carry to full term?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Help me out here… I have (successfully) gone through IVF so know that after egg harvesting attempts are made to fertilise all the eggs gathered. Then the embryo(s) most likely to be viable are identified and implanted into the mother’s womb. Is Alabama saying that ALL embryos should be implanted? How many babies do they think a mother can safely carry to full term?

It does not really matter because no clinic is going to stay involved in offering IVF services in this type of legal environment.

[Anonymous]

Elections.. have consequences.

So, now women in AL have to go out of state to not only try to get pregnant if they have trouble doing so, but also to get medical care if they have issues with their pregnancy so that they can have children in the future.

But, hey, at least you get to punish them whores. That's way more important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted this on another thread - it's not only about birth control and IVF. No more birth control means no more recreational sex; sex only for its intended purpose: procreation.

This can't possibly be, can it? I thought the GOP absolutely despised government overreach. Wouldn't regulating people's sex life be an instance of gross government overreach?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Help me out here… I have (successfully) gone through IVF so know that after egg harvesting attempts are made to fertilise all the eggs gathered. Then the embryo(s) most likely to be viable are identified and implanted into the mother’s womb. Is Alabama saying that ALL embryos should be implanted? How many babies do they think a mother can safely carry to full term?

It does not really matter because no clinic is going to stay involved in offering IVF services in this type of legal environment.

Just like a lot of OBs don't want to practice in an environment where they cannot provide the proper medical care to their pregnant patients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this on another thread - it's not only about birth control and IVF. No more birth control means no more recreational sex; sex only for its intended purpose: procreation.

This can't possibly be, can it? I thought the GOP absolutely despised government overreach. Wouldn't regulating people's sex life be an instance of gross government overreach?

GOP are fine with government overreach as long as it fits their narrative. All else is unAmerican and government overreach.

GOP also want to ban gay sex, even as some are having gay sex secretly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Help me out here… I have (successfully) gone through IVF so know that after egg harvesting attempts are made to fertilise all the eggs gathered. Then the embryo(s) most likely to be viable are identified and implanted into the mother’s womb. Is Alabama saying that ALL embryos should be implanted? How many babies do they think a mother can safely carry to full term?

It does not really matter because no clinic is going to stay involved in offering IVF services in this type of legal environment.

Just like a lot of OBs don't want to practice in an environment where they cannot provide the proper medical care to their pregnant patients.

Overturning Roe was a terrible development for people that want to try to carry healthy pregnancies and deliver babies in these Gilead states. "Pro life" is ironically anti-pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Help me out here… I have (successfully) gone through IVF so know that after egg harvesting attempts are made to fertilise all the eggs gathered. Then the embryo(s) most likely to be viable are identified and implanted into the mother’s womb. Is Alabama saying that ALL embryos should be implanted? How many babies do they think a mother can safely carry to full term?

It does not really matter because no clinic is going to stay involved in offering IVF services in this type of legal environment.

This.
If you went through IVF, then you know that there is an attrition rate, even in between fertilization and day 5/day 6, when you generally end up freezing the embryos. If life begins at fertilization, then who is going to take the risk of being responsible for the "death" of those fertilized eggs that don't grow to be embryos (5-day blastocysts)?
In the process of multiple FETs, my DH and I lost several embryos when they were thawed prior to transfer. Would we be held criminally responsible, since we requested the transfers? Would the embryologist and RE be held criminally responsible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this on another thread - it's not only about birth control and IVF. No more birth control means no more recreational sex; sex only for its intended purpose: procreation.

This can't possibly be, can it? I thought the GOP absolutely despised government overreach. Wouldn't regulating people's sex life be an instance of gross government overreach?

The GOP is gone. GOP used to be anti Russia too. Reagan broke the USSR and now the GOP supports Putin whose dream is to restore the USSR. The GOP is a run by rage filled white males, grifters, religious zealots and apathetic jerks.

The party made a deal with the devil when it courted the religious right. The politicized evangelical and Catholic factions are organized. They figured out that the populist Trumpers only care about pushing white male patriarchy and being anti woke. It doesn’t matter that 85 % of republicans believe I’ve and abortion should be legal. In fact being able to force their minority opinion on others makes them feel more powerful. The MAGAs are about revenge, punishing women and rage.

[Anonymous]

White House statement on this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:White House statement on this

Yes to everything in that statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:White House statement on this

This is a good statement but do not leave men out. Men also need access to fertility treatments and need to be able to make these decisions without interference.

[Anonymous]

I can only imagine the pearl-clutching from upper middle class suburban women who are counting on IVF to get pregnant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can only imagine the pearl-clutching from upper middle class suburban women who are counting on IVF to get pregnant.

Yes, how absolutely entitled of them! Imagine wanting to have a child....

FYI, there are now 21 states plus DC which have passed fertility insurance coverage laws, and 15 of those laws include IVF coverage. That means that folks who are not wealthy but who have health insurance can benefit from fertility and IVF services in those states.

https://resolve.org/learn/financial-resources-for-family-building/insurance-coverage/insurance-coverage-by-state/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can only imagine the pearl-clutching from upper middle class suburban women who are counting on IVF to get pregnant.

This a weird comment. Suburban women are not Trump's demographic. They see his threat to their sons and daughters and many do not support him.