Over the last two weeks, there has been much debate over the conception and premature birth of the California octuplets.  This debate and the outrage it has provoked have primarily been directed at the choices of the mother, Nadya Suleman, and the actions of her doctor, Dr. Michael Kamrava of the West Coast IVF Clinic.  Just this week, the Medical Board of California announced that it was investigating Dr. Kamrava in an attempt to “substantiate if there was a violation of the standard of care.”  The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) has express interest in assisting in this investigation.

ASMR guidelines recommend that a woman of Suleman’s age only have 2 or 3 embryos implanted in any one in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment cycle.  In this case, Dr. Kamrava is reported to have implanted 6 embryos – two of which divided and became two sets of twins, resulting in eight babies.

While an investigation of Dr. Kamrava’s actions and medical judgment certainly seems warranted, most of the numerous news stories and commentaries have failed to address a critical contributing factor to this controversy: the lack of any meaningful regulations of artificial reproductive technologies (ART), specifically the IVF industry.  However, this is a discussion that we must have as more and more women and families turn to ART as a means of having biologically-related children.

Currently, there is little data about the nature and growth of ART and very little federal or state regulation of it.  ART needs to be regulated, in large part, to protect the health of mothers and the children conceived and to preserve parental relationships and the dignity of human procreation.

A March 2004 report by the President’s Council on Bioethics, Reproduction & Responsibility, constitutes the most in-depth review and analysis of the fertility industry in the United States since 1978.  The report’s critical findings and conclusions include:

• There is no uniform, comprehensive, and enforceable system of data collection, monitoring, or oversight for the biotechnologies affecting human reproduction.
• There is minimal direct governmental regulation of the practice of assisted reproduction.
• There is extensive professional self-regulation of the practice of assisted reproduction, but compliance with the standards invoked is purely voluntary.
• There is no comprehensive, uniform, and enforceable mechanism for oversight of how the new reproductive biotechnologies affect the well-being of the children conceived with their aid, the egg donors, or the gestational mothers.
• There are no nationally uniform laws or policies relating to access of assisted reproduction.
• Given the present framework of regulation, novel technologies and practices that are successful move from the experimental context to clinical practice with relatively little oversight or deliberation.  Once in practice, these techniques are used at clinicians’ discretion, with little or no external oversight.

Clearly then, it is important that we move forward and seek to provide meaningful oversight and regulation of ART and the IVF industry.  AUL already advocates such regulation and has produced model legislation entitled “Assisted Reproductive Technologies Disclosure and Risk Reduction Act“.

For more information about ART and IVF, the lack of current regulation, and the need to regulate these industries, see Clarke Forsythe, “Preserving Human Dignity:  Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART).”

Yale Law Students for Life are hosting two events featuring AUL’s own Clarke Forsythe: a debate on reproductive technology Thursday (tonight!) at 7pm, and a career/book lunch Friday at noon.

Embryo Economy: Regulating Egg Donation and In Vitro Fertilization
Date: Thursday, Dec. 11
Time: 7:00 PM
Place: SLB 129
Speakers: Clarke Forsythe (AUL) v. John Robertson (Univ. Texas School of Law)
Topic: Regulating Reproductive Technology
Sponsors: Yale Law Students for Life & Yale Law Students for Reproductive Choice
Food: Non-pizza dinner

How To Be a Pro-Life Lawyer
Date: Friday, Dec. 12
Time: 12:00 NOON
Place: SLB 129
Speaker: Clarke Forsythe (AUL)
Topic: What is a pro-life lawyer and what books does he or she write?
Sponsors: Yale Law Students for Life
Food: Pizza

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 11, 2008

Americans United for Life Releases Eight New Model Legislation & Policy Guides: Twenty-Three Model Legislation & Policy Guides Now Available

Chicago, Illinois — Americans United for Life (AUL) today released its 2009 Model Legislation & Policy Guides. With the addition of eight new guides this year, AUL now offers 23 pieces of model legislation on key issues related to abortion, protection of unborn victims of violence, bioethics, healthcare rights of conscience, and the end-of-life.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO said, “AUL is the leading developer of cutting-edge pro-life legislation that saves lives today and lays the groundwork for a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law.”

New additions to AUL’s library of model legislation include a state legislative resolution opposing the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a prohibition on coerced abortions, and The Child Protection Act—comprehensive legislation to ensure abortion providers report child sexual abuse and prevent the transportation of children across state lines for clandestine abortions.

Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs added, “Each year, AUL legal and policy experts provide extensive consulting and support to legislators across the nation, helping to enact protective laws that advance a culture of life. We look forward to partnering with legislators and pro-life allies in 2009 to build on our past successes.”

All of AUL’s Model Legislation & Policy Guides are available at http://www.aul.org/Legislative_Guides

We’re back this morning at the Minneapolis Convention center as the GOP platform delegates continue their consideration of amendments to the platform.  This morning has been devoted to the national defense section. 

But it still provided a great example of how life issues affect so many different areas:  in a section focused on international organizations, language was inserted to reaffirm the Mexico City policy barring funding to organizations that promote or provide abortion as a method of family planning.

All in favor, say AYE.

The motion passed.

We break for lunch in a little while and will come back this afternoon to consider the Health sections which include the Rights of Conscience sections and a portion that references stem cell research and human cloning.  The hall is buzzing with rumours that the stem cell section might be watered down.

More later.

In its first statement devoted exclusively to the issue of embryonic stem cell research, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) last week firmly stated the following:

It now seems undeniable that once we cross the fundamental moral line that prevents us from treating any fellow human being as a mere object of research, there is no stopping point.  The only moral stance that affirms the human dignity of all of us is to reject that first step down this path.

The USCCB urges all Catholics—and others of good will—to join them in reaffirming that “the killing of innocent human creatures, even if carried out to help others, constitutes an absolutely unacceptable act.”

The statement—overwhelmingly approved by at vote of 191 to 1—is the first of two documents to be released by the USCCB.  The second document will be addressed to engaged and married couples in the Catholic Church, educating them on reproductive technologies and the link to embryonic stem cell research.

Stating that while the Catholic church “appreciates and encourages the progress of the biomedical sciences which open up unprecedented therapeutic prospects” (quoting Pope Benedict XVI), the USCCB focuses on the fact that embryonic stem cell research sacrifices innocent human life—stating that “[d]irect attacks on innocent human life are always gravely wrong.”

The USCCB explains that justifications set forth for embryonic stem cell research are founded on utilitarian principles that will eventually harm the dignity and autonomy of the very patients it is currently supposed to “help.”  For example, if we use embryos simply because the embryos are going to “die anyway”—where do we draw the line?  Patients with terminal illnesses and criminals on death row will “die anyway”—but that does not give scientists the ability to kill them for medical research.  As the USCCB states, “[t]he very same ethic that justifies taking some lives to help the patients with Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease today can be used to sacrifice that very patient tomorrow, if his or her survival is viewed as disadvantaging or other human beings considered more deserving or productive.”

This logic is not as strained as researchers would like us to think.  Just this week it was reported that in Oregon, the state’s health services will pay for patients’ lethal drugs for assisted suicide, but not for further treatments.

Similarly, if an embryo is not afforded human rights simply because it is too weak or undeveloped to possess such rights—where does that leave patients whose diseases have progressed to a degree that the patients lack all autonomy?  “If fundamental human rights such as the right to life are based on abilities or qualities that can appear or disappear, grow or diminish, and be greater or lesser in different human beings, then there are no inherent human rights, no true human equality, only privileges for the strong.”

The USCCB statement also explains that human cloning is argued as essential for the progress of embryonic stem cell research.  This leads to the creation of life for the purpose of destroying life.  It also leads to the deplorable practice of using women for their eggs—in complete disregard for the health of women.

And thus, the USCCB’s conclusion stated above: once we cross the line, there is no stopping point.

Discover has published an interview with Leon Kass, the former chair of the President’s Council on Bioethics, that is far ranging in its discussion of health policy issues. Touching on ethics, technological innovation, end of life issues, reproduction issues, stem cell research, therapy vs. enhancement, access to healthcare, and civic engagement, the interview is well worth your time.

Just posted at AUL.org, our review of the 2007 state legislative sessions.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Overall Trends andAnalysis
• Abortion
  • Amendments to General Abortion Statutes
  • Abortion Bans/Constitutional Amendments
  • Abortion Clinic Regulations
  • Clinic Access/FACE
  • Coerced Abortions
  • Crisis Pregnancy Centers
  • Freedom of Choice Act/FOCA
  • Informed Consent/Women’s Right to Know
  • Insurance Coverage
  • Legislative Declarations
  • Parental Involvement
  • Provider Requirements/Limitations
  • Public Funding for Abortion
  • RU-486
  • Reporting
  • Spousal Notification
• Contraception
  • “Contraceptive Equity”
  • Emergency Contraception/Plan B
• Protection for Unborn Victims of Violence and Newly-Born
  • Protection of Unborn Victims of Violence
  • Born-Alive Infant Protection
  • “Baby Moses” Laws
  • Stillbirth Certificates
  • Substance Abuse During Pregnancy/Child Endangerment
• Bioethics
  • Constitutional Amendments
  • Human Cloning
  • Destructive Embryo Research (DER)/Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR)
  • Chimeras
• Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies / In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)
  • Insurance Coverage
  • Regulation
• Healthcare Rights of Conscience (ROC)
  • Abortion
  • Broad ROC Protection
  • Contraception
  • Protection for Pharmacists
  • “Compulsion” Bills
• End-of-Life
  • Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia
  • Advance Directives
  • Pain Control and Palliative Care
  • Prevention of Dehydration and Starvation
• Endnotes

Full Report Available at AUL.org