Government Controlling Invitro Fertilization?

I’ve tried really, really hard to ignore writing anything about the “Octomom”.  Honestly, I did try!  But the more I hear, the more I can’t ignore it.

The office I work in has CNN on TV all day long, and of course I sit right there.  I won’t go on a rant about how all the anchors sound “screechy” and how some days my poor ears just can’t take it; which is why I try tuning it out as much as possible.  But every now and then, something comes through that catches my attention.

I will admit that I love Lou Dobbs and Jack Cafferty.  It amazes me that they are allowed to say the things they do say, given that I’ve noticed how biased and one sided the “news” is on CNN.  Anyway, one of Jack Cafferty’s commentary’s/questions earlier this week was related to the “Octomom” (as she’s been dubbed) as her actions have spawned some new legislation being considered in a couple of states to limit the number of embryos that can be implanted at one time:

Octuplets’ birth spawns bills limiting embryos

Women under 40 could have no more than 2 embryos implanted at one time

updated 5:05 p.m. MT, Wed., March. 4, 2009

ATLANTA – Lawmakers in two states, outraged by the birth of octuplets to a California mother, are seeking to limit the number of embryos that may be implanted by fertility clinics.

The legislation in Missouri and Georgia is intended to spare taxpayers from footing the bill for women having more children than they can afford. But critics say the measures also would make having even one child more difficult for women who desperately want to become mothers.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Read the FULL STORY here.

According to the story, these implantations cost upwards of $10,000 per session:

Supporters say the bill would cut down on the number of unused embryos. But opponents argue that would severely limit the options of women paying $10,000 to $15,000 for each fertility cycle.

Now, since this whole circus began, and it has slowly come out that Nadya is, in fact, on welfare; the one question I have not heard asked is “how did she afford the implantation?”  I mentioned this to my roommate tonight, who promptly told me she heard on one of the news reports that Nadya claims to have used her severance pay from her last job to pay for it.   I’d love to know what job that was that gives out such hefty severance pay.  So I did a search to see if I could find that answer.  No luck really.  Some say she was on disability.  Again, nice that disability pays so well? I wonder why my roommate’s disability doesn’t pay that well?  Who knew that disability paid so much that someone could afford a $10,000 doctor’s visit?

But seriously, why would any ethical doctor, whether he treated her all along or not, implant so many embryos into a woman who had NO income, 6 children under the age of 7 at home already?

And because of her selfishness, stupidity, delusions; and her doctor’s unethical and negligent actions, lawmakers now want to control IVF treatments for every other woman – innocent and responsible women no less – so that their states’ won’t get stuck paying the bills that California is now saddled with to support Nadya and her 14 children.

Here’s Jack Caffety’s commentary/question regarding this topic:

March 4, 2009

Should government limit embryo implants?

Posted: 06:00 PM ET

From CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

The California woman who had octuplets to go with the six children she already had continues to stir debate around the country. The latest comes from Georgia, where lawmakers want to prevent the same thing from happening in their state.

Should government limit embryo implants?

A Georgia state senator has introduced a bill limiting the number of embryos that can be used during in-vitro fertilization.

A state senator has introduced a bill that would limit the number of embryos that can be implanted in a woman’s uterus during in-vitro fertilization. He doesn’t want taxpayers to have to end up paying for raising children that result from multiple births if the parents can’t afford it.

The limits would be two embryos for a woman under 40 and 3 for a woman older than 40. These numbers are slightly lower than what’s considered normal by most doctors. Breaking the law could result in a fine of up to one-thousand dollars.

And it’s not just Georgia. Missouri is considering a similar bill and laws just like this are already on the books in England and Italy.

Some fertility doctors suggest the proposed legislation would hurt a woman’s chance of getting pregnant, that there are special cases where they need more than 3 embryos.

Critics also suggest this bill is a backdoor effort to ban abortion. That’s because the bill says “a living in vitro human embryo is a biological human being who is not the property of any person or entity.”

It’s not likely to pass in Georgia anytime soon because of a crowded legislative calendar, but the fact that it’s being discussed at all is cause for alarm in some circles.

Here’s my question to you: Should the government limit the number of embryos a woman can have implanted?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

You can read some of the responses HERE.

The responses he got were of course mixed.  Some people said YES and some said NO!  Go figure….LOL   But the question and responses got me to thinking hard.   Of course my first reaction was of course they should if the woman is on welfare.   That makes perfect sense to me.  Then again, exactly how does someone on welfare afford in-vitro fertilization?

This is where my conflict comes in though.  If you are collecting welfare, disability, whatever, you are basically being supported by the taxpayers.  And while I don’t believe that has to mean the taxpayers get to decide what you can and cannot do, I do think it means that you are less free to make choices if those choices deliberately end up costing the taxpayer even more.   I’m not a fan of government intrusion as it is, and definitely NOT wanting government intruding into MY personal life choices at all!!!!  I couldn’t live that way.  And yet, I would feel obligated to if the very basics of my life’s needs were being paid for by others.

One of the responses Jack got, was the perfect response.  The writer said that the government had NO place legislating this, but that the states needed to re-vamp their welfare programs.  This is so very true.  Some people fall on hard times and require a helping hand, however, that hand shouldn’t be only feeding them indefintely, but instead helping them learn to feed themselves again, so they can once again stand on their own two feet.  Welfare was never supposed to be a career or heirloom passed from generation to generation.

I’ve always said that if you need to apply for welfare, then what you received when you applied is all you should ever be allowed….except for maybe cost of living increases.  However many children you have at that time, you could receive monies/food stamps for, but that you should not receive more just for having another child or three.  The only exception I can see to this is if you are already pregnant when you apply, OR you were raped and can’t bring yourself to have an abortion.  Other than that, there is NO excuse for expecting the hard working taxpayers to continually and endlessly pay for your pregnancies, and children.

I’ve heard that medicare (which is usually part of the welfare/food stamps package) does not pay for birth control.  THAT makes no sense to me.  It is far less expensive to cover the price of a woman’s birth control pill/method than it is to pay for her repeated pregnancies, births, child-raising for 18 years.

So, my response to these legislators in Missouri, Georgia and any other state, considering this outrageous intrusion, would be to look at your own states’ welfare program and fix it!

If something is broke you fix it, you don’t pass new laws to pretend something isn’t broken.  And you don’t pass new laws that infringe on the people’s right to make their own choices in life.

Learn to enforce your existing laws.  Learn to create laws that make sense and don’t infringe upon responsible people.  Learn to audit and/or oversee the agencies responsible watching that clinics operate properly.

Just once, I’d like to see these irresponsible people pay for their actions instead of us innocent, responsible people!


~ by swfreedomlover on March 5, 2009.

6 Responses to “Government Controlling Invitro Fertilization?”

  1. Actually, disability comes from Social Security into which we pay all our lives. Welfare is different. I think the difference is obvious. But disability STILL doesn’t cover these types of costs. And really, in today’s economy, why would anyone bring a child into this world at this time?

  2. What comes from where though, isn’t the issue. The issue is that none of these programs pay well. Anyone on Welfare, SSI, SSDI, or any other such program barely gets enough to cover basic living expenses and usually need additional support in the form of housing assistance, food stamps and medicare. OR they have a partner or spouse who works and supports them as well.

    The bottom line really is HOW did this woman pay for the in-vitro fertilization? THAT is the question I have and with her already having 6 kids, I’d be one pissed off taxpayer to find out that the taxpayers paid for this!!!

  3. I think the one thing you are forgetting, is that this is all happening in California. As a California native who wasn’t fruity enough to survive there on my own, and having family still out there, I can assure you California plays by its own set of rules. How much they pay someone for anything can vary as much as weather in Iowa. Whether or not something can be afforded is also not something anyone is going to take into account out there. It’s just comletely wacky, along with about 90% of its population!

  4. Hi Mike! That would then explain why California is basically an UNaffordable place for the average person to live.

    It still pisses me off that it might be taxpayer funds that paid for this selfishness.

  5. Hi, I have just been linked to your blog by vesta (who comments here occasionally) and I really liked this article. Austrian economics are my passion, along with a few other things. Like you, I’ve largely tried not to say much about this particular thing (and I would go nuts if I were forced to listen to CNN at work; my colleague is right near the televisions that are tuned to CNN and she is always coming over to get away from it! She’s conservative) but the question is a good one and there are several things about this news story that are bothering me too. It’s such a clash between completely private, individual choices and public choices, isn’t it?

    I’ll try to comment more intelligently when I’m not so tired, but I wanted to introduce myself since I’m enjoying reading so far.

    • hi Anniee, thanks for stopping by. Yes, it is a very fine line, and it really is one that we need to be careful not to cross. I don’t believe we need any new laws for this though. IF the States’ re-vamped their welfare laws, and encouraged self-sufficiency rather than dependence it would probably take care of itself. And a woman with on welfare already with 6 kids should have to follow a few rules to keep that welfare and NOT put any more burden on the taxpayers who are paying for her family’s basic needs. To me that’s just common sense and consideration for those footing the bills. But that’s just me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: