Georgia Legislative Update: The Bill Morphs

Since I’ve been following the Georgia legislation inspired by the octuplets case, I thought I’d post an update.   The legislation has changed (as legislation is wont to do) and, according to this article, may actually have a chance of passage.  I think it would be a relatively dramatic legal innovation (at least in the US) were it to pass.

The story thus far:   When Nadya Suleman gave birth to octuplets, the fact that ART was essentially unregulated suddenly became big news.   Many people argued that regulation was needed.   As I noted a while back, regulation can take many forms.  What I tend to worry about is what I think of as opportunisitic regulation.  By that I mean regulation that is really advancing some other public policy apart from that present in the octuplet problem but uses this moment of attention to move forward.

The pending Georgia legislation was (and remains) and example of such opportunistic regulation.   Originally the bill did a bunch of things that restricted access to ART for lots of people.   Additionally, it defined an embryo as a living human being.   This last provision was not really surprising, given that primary sponsorship of the bill was attributed to Georgia Right to Life.   From what I read the original bill was not given a very high likelihood of enactment.

Now the morphing.  That article I linked to (the one here)  recounts committee approval of a narrower bill.   Most of the early provisions have been stripped out and what remains is that last one I described above–defining an embryo as a living human being.  (I’d take a guess that this is actually the provision nearest and dearest to the sponsoring organization’s heart.)  This bill, it seems might actually pass.

Note first that this doesn’t really address the octuplet problem at all.   As far as I can tell, a woman could go to a clinic and have ten embryos prepared and transferred.

What the bill does do is prevent the destruction of any embryos that are prepared.  Thus, if a person (or a couple) prepared four and chose to transfer only two (in order to minimize the risks of multiples) and if that transfer resulted in pregnancy, the couple would be obliged to retain those other two embryos (presumably now frozen) in perpetuity.   (I suppose they would be allowed to attempt to have the embryos adopted out–a topic I will address tomorrow, because I stumbled over another news story about that practice.)

Now there are many reasons why a person using IVF might create more embryos than will be used on one attempt and, using something called PIGD or PGD, choose the best quality for transfer.   Indeed, because of uncertainties in the process and because of medical procedures used to harvest eggs, I think it is fairly common to prepare more embryos than will be used.   Thus, the bill as now constituted would force a substantial change in the way ART is currently done.   At the same time, remember, it doesn’t really get to the octuplets problem.     I’ll keep an eye on it, but it sure seems to me to be opportunistic regulation.

Advertisements

4 responses to “Georgia Legislative Update: The Bill Morphs

  1. http://www.alittlepregnant.com/

    This is more of a “infertility/pregnancy/parenting” blog like my own but the person that writes it often has much to say on such things and has writen some interesting things on the legislation if you’d like to take a moment to read it.

    • I think that description is from the previous version, now overtaken by this one. As I understand it, the limits on things like the number of embryos that could be transferred were dropped, all in favor of this one provision that just says embryos are entitled to be treated as fully human beings.

      • I’m pretty sure the author of that blog would take offense at even, especially, that specific part. Anyway, I wasn’t sending you there for that exact post…. she often posts regarding current events that deal with infertility and I thought you might find her point of view interesting.

        • I’m sure you are right about that. And I do not mean to minimize the implications of this one little provision. It’s also a nice little instance of how legislation changes as bills move through the process. It makes it really hard sometimes to have a handle on what’s out there.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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