Did you know MD's IVF coverage statute excludes single women, women using donor sperm, and lesbians?

[Anonymous]

Ryan will make it illegal nation wide.



To those TTC it's important to know about HR212.
Paul Ryan co-sponsored this bill that gives "personhood" rights immediately to fertilized eggs- specifically including IVF/egg donor/surrogacy.
Had this passed it would mean the eggs instantly had all the rights of a person and thus laws could be passed saying it would be illegal to:
thaw your snowbabies if you are lucky enough to concieve the desired about of children
decide not to implact if PGD tests showed genetic abnormalities- even if it was inevitable the blasty would miscarry-because it is still a person and has the right to develop.
reduce number of embryos (eg. if you implanted  4 and all took you'd be re quired to have 4 babies) despite the fact that 3+ multiples face health risks and increase healthcare costs immensely and family costs.
In fact, if you strictly adhered to the letter of the law that you could only remove the exact number of eggs from follicles you'd want to concieve because all that were fertilized are instant people (and we all know how impossible that is to predict).  What would that do to healthcare costs as the likelihood of a successful IVF cycle on one or two eggs to start with is slim.
I am not trying to turn this into a political conversation- I just think this community needs to know where Paul Ryan stands on the science that helps us all. (My DH is a die-hard Republican, he agrees this is a problem point)
Paul Ryan is clearly trying to protect babies but there is no group on earth (imho) who cares more for babies, wants the best outcomes, places value on their health and desparately cares about children more than women TTC.  We don't need legistlation in this area.
It is a little concerning that he so clearly doesn't understand the realities and the science behind IVF and yet co-sponsored a bill which would have resulted in laws that make IVF nearly impossible and certainly financially unobtainable (how much would it cost to get a successful result with those restraints if already it's only about 25-50% successful depending on factors)
Here is the full text of the bill:

OFFICIAL SUMMARY

1/7/2011--Introduced.Sanctity of Human Life Act - Declares that: 
(1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is the person's paramount and most fundamental right; 
(2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, at which time every human has all legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and 
(3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories have the authority to protect all human lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ryan will make it illegal nation wide.



To those TTC it's important to know about HR212.
Paul Ryan co-sponsored this bill that gives "personhood" rights immediately to fertilized eggs- specifically including IVF/egg donor/surrogacy.
Had this passed it would mean the eggs instantly had all the rights of a person and thus laws could be passed saying it would be illegal to:
thaw your snowbabies if you are lucky enough to concieve the desired about of children
decide not to implact if PGD tests showed genetic abnormalities- even if it was inevitable the blasty would miscarry-because it is still a person and has the right to develop.
reduce number of embryos (eg. if you implanted  4 and all took you'd be re quired to have 4 babies) despite the fact that 3+ multiples face health risks and increase healthcare costs immensely and family costs.
In fact, if you strictly adhered to the letter of the law that you could only remove the exact number of eggs from follicles you'd want to concieve because all that were fertilized are instant people (and we all know how impossible that is to predict).  What would that do to healthcare costs as the likelihood of a successful IVF cycle on one or two eggs to start with is slim.
I am not trying to turn this into a political conversation- I just think this community needs to know where Paul Ryan stands on the science that helps us all. (My DH is a die-hard Republican, he agrees this is a problem point)
Paul Ryan is clearly trying to protect babies but there is no group on earth (imho) who cares more for babies, wants the best outcomes, places value on their health and desparately cares about children more than women TTC.  We don't need legistlation in this area.
It is a little concerning that he so clearly doesn't understand the realities and the science behind IVF and yet co-sponsored a bill which would have resulted in laws that make IVF nearly impossible and certainly financially unobtainable (how much would it cost to get a successful result with those restraints if already it's only about 25-50% successful depending on factors)
Here is the full text of the bill:

OFFICIAL SUMMARY

1/7/2011--Introduced.Sanctity of Human Life Act - Declares that: 
(1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is the person's paramount and most fundamental right; 
(2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, at which time every human has all legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and 
(3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories have the authority to protect all human lives.

Unless the entire government is taken over by the Republican wackos, though, this bill would never pass Congress - or so I hope. And if the entire government is indeed taken over by the Republicans, this country has much bigger problems than not being able to do IVF anymore...

[Anonymous]

I'm the original OP and am just commenting for the first time here besides my original post. I think you can write your state legislators (emailing them is easy) and say you think this is unfair. Whether IVF should be covered is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that the law gives certain people rights and does not others, and for what purpose? Religious legislators wanted to only have benefits (at a huge value as we all know and it may be the difference between some having children and others not) for those who are married to the opposite sex and are impregnated by their husband's sperm. This is very unfair. And why? Because some religious legislators (or those who got lobbied by religious groups) decided to push something through under the radar?

I find this really disheartening. State sanctioned discrimination and social engineering.

Yes, to the PP who asked the question, you are excluded if you are married but need donor sperm. Generally, I think the idea was to exclude gays but others got caught up in the discriminatory net because they needed to draft it in a way that excluded gays without being completely obvious. Or maybe they also wanted to discriminate against single women. Horrible. Just one of the 1100 places in MD law where gays get screwed and nobody notices. Or cares.

[Anonymous]

from the fed poster . . . I wrote my senator but never received a response. i truly feel like a second class citizen when it comes to health benefits. i am hetero too but i feel like the state is casting a broad net to exclude a few fish.

[Anonymous]

If we agree that fertility treatments are necessary medical care then the government should pay for all of them.