Are you worried about the end of reproductive rights?

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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?

I truly don't know. It's mind-boggling to me that we could move backward in our access to medical care in this country. I am no longer on my IF journey, but I am so enraged on the behalf of everyone who still is.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

If 2/3 of Americans want legal abortion, as Psaki stated, then a federal law can be passed. But the left and right need to compromise. Abortion in the third trimester (except for medical reasons) is not popular. And a sonogram/counseling/education prior to the procedure is reasonable.

[Anonymous]

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?

I truly don't know. It's mind-boggling to me that we could move backward in our access to medical care in this country. I am no longer on my IF journey, but I am so enraged on the behalf of everyone who still is.

Plus 1 million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

Sorry, you can’t make this about the boomers. Barrett and Kavanaugh are not boomers and directly responsible.

Kavanaugh is the end of boomer generation, so yes, he is a boomer.

No, he is not. Boomer generation ended in 64. He was born year after.

DP. He’s a Boomer in spirit.

So he’s not a boomer.

[Anonymous]

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?

They can still practice, just within the bounds of new laws. Yes, that might compromise the services they can an offer, but the answer will be that infertile couples can just adopt.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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??

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

NP. I don't think they can force transfers, but in some countries the embryos are frozen indefinitely if they're not used.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

What a way to reduce adopted and orphaned children to being worthless.

[Anonymous]

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?