I had a good debate with U. Texas Law Professor John Robertson last night at Yale Law School. The debate was co-sponsored by Yale Law Students for Life and Yale Students for Reproductive Justice.
John is author of Children of Choice and a number of legal articles on reproductive technology. For 30 years, he has advocated a fundamental right to virtually unlimited “procreative freedom” that encompasses using technology to obtain children through virtually any means. He is also a Fellow with the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), which advocates for fertility practitioners.
We debated regulating assisted reproductive technology (ART), a very broad topic. With only 15 minutes to present my case, I proposed 3 rather modest regulations, because we were asked to debate regulating ART and because I sought to identify regulations for which the medical data was the strongest: (1) adequate, timely data collection and reporting to protect the public health; (2) limits on the number of embryos conceived and transferred in any reproductive cycle; and (3) prohibiting the buying and selling of human eggs. I also argued the constitution does not protect a right to IVF and states have broad authority to regulate ART and protect human life.
As expected, he rejected all, though John is a very amiable fellow and not a harsh partisan. To counter every proposed regulation, he advocated self-regulation by doctors and offered countervailing interests of individuals who want to procreate through IVF. The debate demonstrated the need for strong medical data in support of any regulation of ART.
