Headline is an outright lie. The article literally quotes her saying she supports IVF. The author speculates that a bill she is co-sponsoring (that does not mention IVF) may accidentally ban IVF (if it passes and Biden signs it).
Certainly you could denigrate her intelligence, performative politics, or the logical incoherence between her abortion and IVF positions. But you cannot say she wants to do something contrary to her actual explicitly stated desire.
This is how it always happens, lip service doesn't mean anything. They will be QUOTED as being in support of "women's health and safety" and "emergency exceptions" all day long as they vote to overturn Roe and strip down exceptions to meaningless inactionable jargon
They're not going to say (I guess some of the house bombastic ones might) "I'm a Republican in support of preventing your wife from bearing children"
He litterally said the bill doesn't mention IVF. It is just one authors opinion that the bill could possibly be corrupted to ban IVF. The reality is is that one can never predict all the side effects a bill might have when it is intentionally misinterpreted.
Its not actually hypocritical to want to ban something that you used. Its like if you used Lemmy for a decade and want it banned, you can see the dangers of using Lemmy, you would actually be most aware of the dangers of the thing.
Yes, because having a social media account is EXACTLY the same as having a child 🙄 For the record, your example is still hypocritical, it's just not nearly as life-changing
Yeah, I am aware they are not the same thing, I just expected people could extrapolate the idea out to any number of things. I guess that was a poor assessment.
By my understanding, even with the mini pill (Progestogen-only), producing an embryo is unlikely. The pill thickens mucus membranes in the cervix, meaning most sperm do not make it into the reproductive system. And even low dose pills inhibit egg release 50% of the time, with more moderate doses getting to over 95%.
Can someone explain why this bill prevents IVF? So OK it says that the embryo in the petri dish or whatever is a human. Is the point that therefore other various laws apply to it and so it can't be implanted? Or is it other parts of the process are now forbidden like the freezing others have mentioned?
Also, more embryos may be created than needed. So after a couple conceives, if those embryos are considered to be people, what can the fertility clinic reasonably do with them that won't be considered murder?
With IVF, multiple embryos are grown and then analyzed - the best are implanted, the rest are usually either destroyed or (with the donors’ permission) used for research. You literally can’t conduct IVF without destroying some of the embryos.
During IVF, you don't prepare a single embryo. You prepare dozens at once.
IVF is used when for whatever reason the natural process fails. This can be due to had sperm, bad eggs, trouble with the path to the womb, hormonal imbalances, and a large number of illnesses that fuck up this delicate process. So IVF has to fight a steep uphill battle, and you want multiple fighters in the ring to increase the odds. Why do it all at once and not over after the other? Extraction of the eggs requires intense, weeks to months of hormonal therapy. The extraction is also a surgical procedure, requiring a surgeon to access the ovaries. This is painful and has health risks, you don't want to this every week. Less time and less procedures also help reduce costs. IVF is expensive, quickly costing many thousands of dollars. Last but not least, IVF is an intensely stress- and painful time for the couple on a psychological level alone. Every failed attempt weighs heavy, every miscarriage is a huge loss. Those emotions should not be toyed with and it's clearly ethical to follow the medical process with the highest success chance and least suffering.
Explaining the process:
You extract many eggs and fertilize them with sperm at once. Then you wait for them to do their first couple cell divisions, usually until they are a count of 4, 8 or 16 cells, varies by nation and its laws. The more splits, the easier to qualify the health and success chance of the embryo.
Even during this early stage, multiple of the embryos typically fail to divide properly and are then discarded.
Then, the most vital and hopeful embryos are selected and implanted during another surgical procedure directly into the womb. Again, always multiple. This is because some embryos will die during the process, others will not attach. In the end, you only need one embryo to attach and get supplied by the womb, then you're on track to getting pregnant.
All the other good candidates are frozen, so you have them ready for possible future implantation attempts. It's common that the attachment process doesn't work at first try.
Once your pregnancy is carried out (miscarriage is always a big risk up until the end during IVF) and you are certain you don't want more kids, the rest of the frozen embryos are discarded.
With this new interpretation of the law, doctors and lab techs would be mass murderers.
Since they're underage, the mother would have the authority to make medical decisions on their behalf. If she decides that they wouldn't want to be kept alive by machines like an industrial freezer, surely that's her choice, right?
I'm not a lawyer but I'd love to see how something like this pans out. It feels like another one of those situations where an idiot makes a sweeping ruling that doesn't consider the many many ways it affects society.
As a bonus fact: because multiple embryos are implanted at once, IVF has a much higher chance of having multiple embryos take hold at once. So while getting pregnant is hard on the first place, if it works, there's a higher than usual chance to get twins ( or even more, though much less likely).
This "risk" is clearly communicated in the preparation phase and the potential parents have to ok and accept this for IVF to go ahead at all.
Have you ever thought about the crazy stupid things people did in the past? From using lead pipes in ancient Rome while knowing it was toxic, to blood letting, to witch trials? I used to think, "Man, we humans sure used to be stupid."
No. We still are and have always been collectively stupid. Now, the stupidest of us just have the same potential platform as the rest of us to reach out to the other stupid people via the internet.
That said, the leaded gasoline certainly did us no favours...
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Of course this happens. The exact same bullshit happens with abortions as well, they just call the procedure something else (I forget what, basically sounded like cleaning out the lining?). When asked why they go "my case was a special case, it was the only legitimate abortion ever".
My case was special because I cheated on my husband and didn't want him to find out. But the 14 year old who was raped by her uncle and the pregnancy went ectopic and threatens the life of the underage mother...that should be illegal!!!!
