Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Restricting Reproductive Rights in Georgia.

Sirs,

(I emailed this letter to the State Senators who wrote this piece of legislation. They are as follows: Ralph Hudgens 47th, Don Thomas 54th, Tommie Williams 19th, David Shafer 48th, Chip Rogers 21st and Don Balfour 9th)

Today on CNN the bottom ticker indicated that the State of Georgia intends to draft legislation to restrict the amount of embryos that can be transferred; regardless of age or health of the woman.

After doing some research I found Senate Bill 169 has been read and referred on. It lists these two sections 19-7-66 and 19-7-67.
19-7-66.
In the interest of reducing the risk of complications for both the mother and the transferred in vitro human embryos, including the risk of preterm birth associated with higher-order multiple gestations, a person or entity performing in vitro fertilization shall limit the number of in vitro human embryos created in a single cycle to the number to be transferred in that cycle in accord with Code Section 19-7-67.

19-7-67.
(a) Where a woman under age 40 is to receive treatment using her own eggs or embryos created using her own eggs, whether fresh or previously cryopreserved, at the time of transfer no person or entity shall transfer more than two embryos in any treatment cycle, regardless of the procedure used.
(b) Where a woman age 40 or over is to receive treatment using her own eggs or embryos created using her own eggs, whether fresh or previously cryopreserved, at the time of transfer no person or entity shall transfer more than three embryos in any treatment cycle, regardless of the procedure used.
(c) Where a woman is to receive treatment using donated eggs or adopted embryos, no person or entity shall transfer more than two donated eggs or two adopted embryos in any treatment cycle, regardless of the woman's age at the time of transfer and regardless of the procedure used.

I have always found it troubling when the legislature tries to pass laws on reproduction. In this case I believe it is a knee jerk reaction to the Ms Sulyman case in California. Please, be aware that her instance is an aberration and not the rule. Also be aware that the John and Kate plus Eight were not in vitro but IUI- Intro Uterine Insemination (if you would like to know more about that call a doctor).

In the case of embryos were you gentlemen aware that they all graded, depending on how much they have divided, cell membrane and other details. Fresh is a better way to go. However when embryos are frozen, it typical to unfreeze double what a woman may need, for more often then not many don’t survive the process. Embryos are a fragile have you discussed with an embryologist how often can it can be frozen and unfrozen before it’s destroyed. (Did any of you talk to a doctor at all?)

Why chose the age 40? Ovum age at different rate, a woman of age 25 or less than 40 could have aged or damaged ovum. A woman over 40 may have better quality ovum. It is hard enough for medicine to make that judgment, I’m not sure I would trust a lawmaker to do better.
Another thing is that you are all Republicans I thought that a tenet of your party was not to involve yourselves in an individual personal affairs. (Small Government) By creating this piece of legislation will you also add an appeal process? Who will man it more lawyers or lawmakers, anyone from the medical field? It would appear little thought has been put into this process.

Decisions like the one you want to legislate is best left in the hands of doctors and parents. This piece of legislation speaks of haste without any regard for the constituents you represent. I am asking you to remove these pieces (19-7-66 and 19-7-67) or rewrite them that allow the correct individuals to determine what is best for theirs patients.


Sincerely yours,

Adriana Rosas Maxwell

No comments: