IVF embryos are people too

[Anonymous]

Correct me, if I’m wrong, but there’s not only IVF at stake here, but all fertility treatments.

In an IUI the outcome can be a high order pregnancy, and usually for the life of the mother, most do not carry through more than 2 or 3 in the end. The costs and health risks to carry more are astronomical. You could not do a reduction anymore.

Only single transfers would be possible under these new laws. Or may there be an issue as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m lucky that I didn’t have to have fertility treatments - how would those even work if you needed to travel to another state? Don’t you need to report in on short notice?

Yes, very short notice and daily blood draws etc. you would have to move to where your clinic is for a month or two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For every woman who is worried now about her embryos; transfers or if she can even start IVF - I ask you who did you vote for in 2016; who do you plan to vote for in 2024.

I had my babies. I want to see others be able to as well. But I laugh at those now in Alabama and other places (Texas, Ohio, etc) who said "but her emails" to me. They can stay barren.

That last line is kinda harsh, but I feel fairly similarly. WTH did these folks who voted in these people think was going to happen? The path to this point in time has been fairly clear, even if it took longer than what the evangelicals worked for.

Yes, here we are, it was very clear we would get here. They can write into law what “protections” they want, medicine is too complicated to address every little scenario. Nobody intelligent wants to practice in these environments. Maternal care cannot function to the standards of 2024. It’s a mess when politicians try to insert themselves into your uterus.

[Anonymous]

Well, the women and potential parents in Alabama helped vote these conservatives in, so they get what they get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, the women and potential parents in Alabama helped vote these conservatives in, so they get what they get.

The out cry is confusing. This is what Trump said he would do, he got the votes, he gets roe overturned...what is the problem? This is what Alabama wanted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the women and potential parents in Alabama helped vote these conservatives in, so they get what they get.

The out cry is confusing. This is what Trump said he would do, he got the votes, he gets roe overturned...what is the problem? This is what Alabama wanted

That's what I don't understand either. It's almost like conservative women don't understand what they are voting on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Correct me, if I’m wrong, but there’s not only IVF at stake here, but all fertility treatments.

In an IUI the outcome can be a high order pregnancy, and usually for the life of the mother, most do not carry through more than 2 or 3 in the end. The costs and health risks to carry more are astronomical. You could not do a reduction anymore.

Only single transfers would be possible under these new laws. Or may there be an issue as well?

This is why monitoring during IUI is so important. Any decent OB or RE who offers IUI will insist on monitoring, which includes a trans-vaginal ultrasound to determine the number of mature follicles (potential eggs) prior to going through with the actual IUI procedure. We did several cycles of IUI before moving to IVF, and our first cycle was canceled because the ultrasound showed 6 mature follicles. My RE felt that continuing with IUI was too risky for higher-order multiples in this situation.
Likewise, in IVF, transfer of single embryos is typically standard these days. No reputable RE is going to routinely encourage scenarios that result in multiples because of the risks inherent in carrying such pregnancies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the women and potential parents in Alabama helped vote these conservatives in, so they get what they get.

The out cry is confusing. This is what Trump said he would do, he got the votes, he gets roe overturned...what is the problem? This is what Alabama wanted

That's what I don't understand either. It's almost like conservative women don't understand what they are voting on.

That's because most people are ignorant and/or vote/decide things with their "feelings" rather than logic. They're now witnessing the consequences of their decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correct me, if I’m wrong, but there’s not only IVF at stake here, but all fertility treatments.

In an IUI the outcome can be a high order pregnancy, and usually for the life of the mother, most do not carry through more than 2 or 3 in the end. The costs and health risks to carry more are astronomical. You could not do a reduction anymore.

Only single transfers would be possible under these new laws. Or may there be an issue as well?

This is why monitoring during IUI is so important. Any decent OB or RE who offers IUI will insist on monitoring, which includes a trans-vaginal ultrasound to determine the number of mature follicles (potential eggs) prior to going through with the actual IUI procedure. We did several cycles of IUI before moving to IVF, and our first cycle was canceled because the ultrasound showed 6 mature follicles. My RE felt that continuing with IUI was too risky for higher-order multiples in this situation.
Likewise, in IVF, transfer of single embryos is typically standard these days. No reputable RE is going to routinely encourage scenarios that result in multiples because of the risks inherent in carrying such pregnancies.

Yes, it pretty much means people in Alabama won't be able to have fertility treatments. Which is what they voted to have happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correct me, if I’m wrong, but there’s not only IVF at stake here, but all fertility treatments.

In an IUI the outcome can be a high order pregnancy, and usually for the life of the mother, most do not carry through more than 2 or 3 in the end. The costs and health risks to carry more are astronomical. You could not do a reduction anymore.

Only single transfers would be possible under these new laws. Or may there be an issue as well?

This is why monitoring during IUI is so important. Any decent OB or RE who offers IUI will insist on monitoring, which includes a trans-vaginal ultrasound to determine the number of mature follicles (potential eggs) prior to going through with the actual IUI procedure. We did several cycles of IUI before moving to IVF, and our first cycle was canceled because the ultrasound showed 6 mature follicles. My RE felt that continuing with IUI was too risky for higher-order multiples in this situation.
Likewise, in IVF, transfer of single embryos is typically standard these days. No reputable RE is going to routinely encourage scenarios that result in multiples because of the risks inherent in carrying such pregnancies.

Yes, it pretty much means people in Alabama won't be able to have fertility treatments. Which is what they voted to have happen.

In Alabama they also elect the state Supreme Court justices. So they voted for all of this. Including that nut job of a chief justice who wrote the concurring opinion full of scripture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the women and potential parents in Alabama helped vote these conservatives in, so they get what they get.

The out cry is confusing. This is what Trump said he would do, he got the votes, he gets roe overturned...what is the problem? This is what Alabama wanted

That's what I don't understand either. It's almost like conservative women don't understand what they are voting on.

That's because most people are ignorant and/or vote/decide things with their "feelings" rather than logic. They're now witnessing the consequences of their decisions.

No. They know what they are voting for. They are “Good Christians” and want to save babies from sluts and whores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the women and potential parents in Alabama helped vote these conservatives in, so they get what they get.

The out cry is confusing. This is what Trump said he would do, he got the votes, he gets roe overturned...what is the problem? This is what Alabama wanted

That's what I don't understand either. It's almost like conservative women don't understand what they are voting on.

That's because most people are ignorant and/or vote/decide things with their "feelings" rather than logic. They're now witnessing the consequences of their decisions.

No. They know what they are voting for. They are “Good Christians” and want to save babies from sluts and whores.

And they assume their own daughters will never have a medical problem getting pregnant if she wants to. Or, won't have a fetus who might kill her and leave her other children motherless.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Boy Speaker was born in 1972.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think the one thing Johnson and I may have in common is that we both don’t realize that 1990 wasn’t 10 years ago and the 70s weren’t 30 years ago.