Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Claire McCaskill just said that there’s already a law on the books in Missouri that states that personhood begins at conception. She says that would make IVF illegal.

Why would that make IVF illegal?

What do you do with the non implanted embryos? Those are now humans according to state law. What do you do if you never implant? You can't just dispose of the embryos, because that's now murder.

Since we're just making up rights, laws, and science, now, we can make an exception for those. Not a problem.

This is the Federalist Society agenda. They have not hidden it. They have bought at least 5 Supreme Court Seats, maybe 6. This is what they want and what is coming, unless we get enough Senators in to make the law and change the balance of the court at the same time.

Wake up.

The irony, of course, is how many FedSoc female lawyers or the wives of male FedSoc lawyers have availed themselves of IVF. It's probably A LOT with that crowd.

Of course, because it’s not like they actually subscribe to any of the religious nonsense they use to push their corporate, pro billionaire agenda. But it will catch up with them eventually. When in the history of humanity has an extremist religious group moderated when they got what they want? Crazy Eyes Barrett is the future here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Claire McCaskill just said that there’s already a law on the books in Missouri that states that personhood begins at conception. She says that would make IVF illegal.

Why would that make IVF illegal?

What do you do with the non implanted embryos? Those are now humans according to state law. What do you do if you never implant? You can't just dispose of the embryos, because that's now murder.

Since we're just making up rights, laws, and science, now, we can make an exception for those. Not a problem.

This is the Federalist Society agenda. They have not hidden it. They have bought at least 5 Supreme Court Seats, maybe 6. This is what they want and what is coming, unless we get enough Senators in to make the law and change the balance of the court at the same time.

Wake up.

The irony, of course, is how many FedSoc female lawyers or the wives of male FedSoc lawyers have availed themselves of IVF. It's probably A LOT with that crowd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Claire McCaskill just said that there’s already a law on the books in Missouri that states that personhood begins at conception. She says that would make IVF illegal.

Why would that make IVF illegal?

What do you do with the non implanted embryos? Those are now humans according to state law. What do you do if you never implant? You can't just dispose of the embryos, because that's now murder.

Since we're just making up rights, laws, and science, now, we can make an exception for those. Not a problem.

This is the Federalist Society agenda. They have not hidden it. They have bought at least 5 Supreme Court Seats, maybe 6. This is what they want and what is coming, unless we get enough Senators in to make the law and change the balance of the court at the same time.

Wake up.

If you are getting infertility treatments or know someone who is, you better wake up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Claire McCaskill just said that there’s already a law on the books in Missouri that states that personhood begins at conception. She says that would make IVF illegal.

Why would that make IVF illegal?

What do you do with the non implanted embryos? Those are now humans according to state law. What do you do if you never implant? You can't just dispose of the embryos, because that's now murder.

Since we're just making up rights, laws, and science, now, we can make an exception for those. Not a problem.

This is the Federalist Society agenda. They have not hidden it. They have bought at least 5 Supreme Court Seats, maybe 6. This is what they want and what is coming, unless we get enough Senators in to make the law and change the balance of the court at the same time.

Wake up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand all the last about viability at 15 weeks.
It’s not viable for another 7 weeks at least.
I don’t understand why 15 weeks is a magic number.

Casey set viability as the limit for state imposed restrictions. The Mississippi law at issue now bans abortions at 15 weeks. There is no way to uphold the law without overturning the viability standard. Mississippi has been very strategic in that they set a date well before viability to deprive the court of an easy out and well after a woman knows they are pregnant to deprive the court of that easy out as well. This case will require them to either overturn current law or let it stand, there really is no compromise based on how Mississippi set it up.

And the illegitimate GOP court is happy to toss everything out.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand all the last about viability at 15 weeks.
It’s not viable for another 7 weeks at least.
I don’t understand why 15 weeks is a magic number.

Casey set viability as the limit for state imposed restrictions. The Mississippi law at issue now bans abortions at 15 weeks. There is no way to uphold the law without overturning the viability standard. Mississippi has been very strategic in that they set a date well before viability to deprive the court of an easy out and well after a woman knows they are pregnant to deprive the court of that easy out as well. This case will require them to either overturn current law or let it stand, there really is no compromise based on how Mississippi set it up.

I don’t understand all the last about viability at 15 weeks.
It’s not viable for another 7 weeks at least.
I don’t understand why 15 weeks is a magic number.

So will child support now start in utero?

Could you drop them off at a baby safe haven location?

MS Attorney General - the woman who comes from a rich family - stated that the law was great because it empowers women and they can have it all! Any woman can achieve her dreams and have children! Any woman can take care of a small child and she uses her own life as a example. She was divorced with 3 small children and if she can do it, anyone can! Never mind that she had childcare and a nanny. Or that MS is the only state without a gender pay equity law. Or that MS women are the poorest in the nation. She doesn't support paid family leave or subsidized child care. Why would she, she was fine as a single parent.

Any her daddy, who is her largest donor, is the owner of a great quail hunting estate, where one of the options for accommodations is to stay in the house of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate general and the first Ku Klux Klan grand wizard.

This is an upstanding family!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Claire McCaskill just said that there’s already a law on the books in Missouri that states that personhood begins at conception. She says that would make IVF illegal.

Why would that make IVF illegal?

What do you do with the non implanted embryos? Those are now humans according to state law. What do you do if you never implant? You can't just dispose of the embryos, because that's now murder.

You could stop paying for their storage, and then sue anyone who tries to give them away. Force CPS to take “custody” of them and formally strip you of your parental rights. If your state wants to play stupid games they can pay for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Claire McCaskill just said that there’s already a law on the books in Missouri that states that personhood begins at conception. She says that would make IVF illegal.

Why would that make IVF illegal?

What do you do with the non implanted embryos? Those are now humans according to state law. What do you do if you never implant? You can't just dispose of the embryos, because that's now murder.

Since we're just making up rights, laws, and science, now, we can make an exception for those. Not a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Claire McCaskill just said that there’s already a law on the books in Missouri that states that personhood begins at conception. She says that would make IVF illegal.

Why would that make IVF illegal?

What do you do with the non implanted embryos? Those are now humans according to state law. What do you do if you never implant? You can't just dispose of the embryos, because that's now murder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Claire McCaskill just said that there’s already a law on the books in Missouri that states that personhood begins at conception. She says that would make IVF illegal.

Why would that make IVF illegal?

I mourn the loss of decent science education in this country.