Featured Post

AmeriKKKa continues her inevitable (Yep.) slide into Third World madness.

Behold the fleas with which that mangy orange cur has infested conservatism! SUCKERS! Neo-Nazis battling commies in the streets? Welcome...

"Let no freedom be allowed to novelty, because it is not fitting that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture." -- Pope Sixtus III

Friday, July 28, 2017

In Vitro, No One Can Hear You Scream Update.

Let's see how long it takes the author of this feel-good piece to tell us how many kids were killed in the making of this particular bit of progress...

From US News:

Scientists Edit the DNA of Embryos for First Time in United States ...


SPOILER ALERT: ALL OF THEM!

Scientists successfully edited the DNA of multiple embryos for the first time in the United States, according to a research team from Oregon Health and Science University in Portland.

Dr. Shoukhrat Mitalipov, head of the university's Center for Embryonic Cell and Gene Therapy, led the experiments, which used the gene-altering technology CRISPR to alter the DNA of a large number of one-cell embryos that could potentially develop into living humans if implanted in a womb.


While not the first to edit human embryos, Mitalipov's research was able to surpass previous issues with "off-target" editing by injecting CRISPR into the eggs at the same time that they were fertilized with sperm, MIT Technology Review reports.

The embryos were only allowed to grow for a few days
, (See, kiddies? When you manipulate language, you can literally get away with murder. Who cares a whit about "embryos"? The eggs you had for breakfast were embryos, for crying out loud. You can hide from the fact this is the wholesale murder of children, but you cannot run from the consequences of it. - F.G.) but the experiments set a milestone toward the development and birth of the first genetically-modified babies. The practice of altering the genes, referred to as "germline engineering," would enable scientists to eradicate or correct genes linked to inherited diseases and further keep the diseases from affecting future generations.

Despite cautions that genome editing could lead to weapons of mass destruction or designer babies, a report released in February by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine gave the green light toward gene editing, referring to it as "a realistic possibility that deserves serious consideration.”


Unless you happen to be one of the kids thrown in the trash, of course...

From Personhood.org comes the story of a 2014 attempt in Georgia to protect all humans from those ravenous trashcans (It failed to pass.)...

Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos (ETHNE) - Personhood Alliance


Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos




The Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos Act - GA SB 169

HISTORY: The bill is based upon a bill passed in Louisiana in 1986. The Louisiana bill establishes all in vitro embryos as "juridical persons". There has been NO legal challenge to it in 23 years. The language has been updated to reflect changes in biomedical technology and medical standards since 1986.

NEED: It is apparent from the recent birth of octuplets to a southern California woman, that the fertility industry needs governmental oversight. This industry is one of the MOST lucrative medical fields and among the LEAST regulated! This results in a serious compromise to the Standard of Care for the women and children involved. With Bio-tech industries coming to Georgia, NOW is the time to develop regulatory oversight that would protect our women and children.

OBJECTIVES:
1.To recognize all human embryos as having the legal right to life and legal protection under the laws of the State of Ga.

2.To provide that it shall be unlawful for any person or entity to intentionally or knowingly create or attempt to create an in vitro human embryo by any means other than
fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm.

3.To provide for standards for physicians and facilities performing in vitro fertilizations.
INTENDED CONSEQUENCE: In the interest of reducing the risk of complications for both the mother and the transferred 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 embryos created in a single cycle to the number to be transferred in that cycle, thereby preventing what has recently occured in California with the woman who bore octuplets.LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Nothing in this article shall be construed to affect conduct relating to abortion; provided, however, that nothing in this article shall be construed or implied to recognize any independent right to abortion under the laws of this state.

2. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create or recognize any independent right to engage in the practice of in vitro fertilization or to create in vitro human embryos by any means.
Contacts:
Daniel Becker    President                          Georgia Right to Life            678-524-9504
Mike Griffin         Legislative Director         Georgia Right to Life            706-436-2646 

 
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT To amend Chapter 7 of Title 19 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to the parent and child relationship generally, so as to provide for a short title; to provide for definitions; to provide that it shall be unlawful for any person or entity to intentionally or knowingly create or attempt to create an in vitro human embryo by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm; to provide that it shall be unlawful or any person or entity to intentionally or knowingly create or attempt to create a human-animal hybrid, to transfer a human embryo into a nonhuman womb, and to transfer a nonhuman embryo into a human womb; to provide for standards for physicians and facilities performing in vitro fertilizations; to provide for judicial standards; to provide for related matters; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:

SECTION 1.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos Act."

SECTION 2.
Chapter 7 of Title 19 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, related to the parent and child relationship generally, is amended by adding a new article to read as follows:

ARTICLE 4
19-7-60.
For purposes of this article, the term:

(1) 'Donor' means an individual from whose body gametes were obtained, or an individual from whose body cells or tissues were obtained for the purpose of creating gametes or human embryos, whether for valuable consideration or not.

(2) 'Gamete' means an egg (oocyte) or sperm.

(3) 'Human embryo' means an organism with a human or predominantly human genetic
constitution from the single-celled stage to approximately eight weeks development that is derived by fertilization (in vitro or in utero), parthenogenesis, cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer), or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.

(4) 'In vitro' means outside the human body.

(5) 'In vitro fertilization' means the formation of a human embryo outside the human body by union of human egg(s) with human sperm.

(6) 'In vitro human embryo' means a human embryo created outside the human body.

(7) 'Transfer' means the placement of a human embryo into the body of a woman.

(8) 'Valuable consideration' means financial gain or advantage, including cash, in-kind
payments, reimbursement for any costs incurred in connection with the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer, or donation of human gametes, including lost wages of the donor, as well as any other consideration.

(9) ‘Human animal hybrid’ means any of the following:


            (a) A human embryo into which a nonhuman cell or a component of a nonhuman cell is introduced so that it is uncertain whether the human embryo is a member of the species homo sapiens;


            (b) A hybrid human-animal embryo produced by fertilizing a human egg with a nonhuman sperm;


            (c) A hybrid human-animal embryo produced by fertilizing a nonhuman egg with a human sperm;


            (d) An embryo produced by introducing a nonhuman nucleus into a human egg; 


            (e) An embryo produced by introducing a human nucleus into a nonhuman egg;


            (f) An embryo containing at least haploid sets of chromosomes from both a human and a nonhuman life form;


            (g) A nonhuman life form engineered with the intention of generating functional human gametes within the body of a nonhuman life form;


            (h) A nonhuman life form engineered such  that it contains a human brain or a brain derived wholly from human neural tissues.


 19-7-61.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to intentionally or knowingly create or attempt to create an in vitro human embryo by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm.

(b) The creation of an in vitro human embryo shall be solely for the purpose of initiating a human pregnancy by means of transfer to the uterus of a human female for the treatment of human infertility.  A pregnancy shall not be initiated with the intention of deliberately destroying the embryo for scientific research.  Neither shall the embryo be gestated to the fetal stage for purposes of destroying the fetus in order to harvest tissue stem cells for research. No person or entity shall intentionally or knowingly transfer or attempt to transfer an embryo into a human uterus that is not the product of fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to intentionally or knowingly:


         (1) Create or attempt to create a human-animal hybrid;


         (2) Transfer or attempt to transfer a human embryo into a nonhuman womb;


            (3) Transfer or attempt to transfer a nonhuman embryo into a human womb;


            (4) Transport or receive for any purpose a human-animal hybrid or any product derived from such hybrid.


(d) Nothing in this section prohibits any of the following:


         (1) Research involving the use of transgenic animal models containing human genes;


         (2) Xenotransplantation of human organs, tissues, or cells into recipient animals, including animals at any stage of development prior to birth, so long as the xenotransplantation does not violate a prohibition in division (c) of this section;


         (3) An individual from receiving organs, tissues, or cells delivered from outside of this state.


19-7-62.
No person or entity shall give or receive valuable consideration, offer to give or receive valuable consideration, or advertise for the giving or receiving of valuable consideration for the provision of gametes or in vitro human embryos. This Code section shall not apply to regulate or prohibit the procurement of gametes for the treatment of infertility being experienced by the patient from whom the gametes are being derived.

19-7-63.
The in vitro human embryo shall be given an identification by the facility for use within the medical facility. Records shall be maintained that identify the donors associated with the in vitro human embryo, and the confidentiality of such records shall be maintained as required by law.

19-7-64.
(a) A living in vitro human embryo is a biological human being who is not the property of any person or entity. The fertility physician and the medical facility that employs the physician owe a high duty of care to the living in vitro human embryo. Any contractual provision identifying the living in vitro embryo as the property of any party shall be null and void. The in vitro human embryo shall not be intentionally destroyed for any purpose by any person or entity or through the actions of such person or entity.

(b) An in vitro human embryo that fails to show any sign of life over a 36 hour period outside a state of cryopreservation shall be considered no longer living.

19-7-65
A.        Any person, employer or entity, whether public or private, has the right not to participate in, and no person, employer or entity, whether public or private, shall be required to participate in any health care service that violates its conscience. No person, employer or entity, whether public or private, shall be held civilly or criminally liable, discriminated against, dismissed, demoted, or in any way prejudiced or damaged because of a refusal for any reason to participate in any health care service that violates its conscience.

 B.        For purposes of this code section:

(a)       "Conscience" means religious, moral or ethical principles.

 (b)       "Health care service" means any phase of patient medical care, treatment or procedure, including, but not limited to, the following: patient referral, counseling, therapy, testing, diagnosis or prognosis, research, instruction, prescribing, dispensing or administering any device, drug, or medication, surgery, or any other care, treatment or procedure.

(c)        "Participate" means to counsel, advise, provide, perform, assist in, refer for, admit for purposes of providing, participate in providing, pay, contract for, or otherwise arrange for the payment of, in whole or in part any health care service or any form of such service.

 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.

 19-7-68.
In disputes arising between any parties regarding the in vitro human embryo, the judicial
standard for resolving such disputes shall be the best interest of the in vitro human embryo.

 19-7-69.
All facilities providing assisted reproductive technologies shall, at least 24 hours prior to
obtaining a signed contract for services, provide patients with informed consent as required by law and obtain a signed disclosure form before services commence. In addition to medical risks and information on outcome and success rates, the informed consent materials shall state in plain language the parental rights and duties of the donors, as well as their legal rights and duties regarding the disposition of in vitro human embryos that were not transferred due to either of the fertility patient's death, divorce, abandonment, or dispute over the custody of the in vitro human embryo.

19-7-70.
Nothing in this article shall be construed to affect conduct relating to abortion as provided in Chapter 12 of Title 16; provided, however, that nothing in this article shall be construed or implied to recognize any independent right to abortion under the laws of this state.

 19-7-71.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this article to the contrary, nothing in this article shall be construed to create or recognize any independent right to engage in the practice of in vitro fertilization or to create in vitro human embryos by any means.

19-7-72.
(a) Any person or entity that violates any provision of this article and derives a pecuniary gain from such violation shall be fined not less than $500.00 nor more than $1,000.00.

"Life is cheap."

(b) Any violation of this article shall constitute unprofessional conduct pursuant to Code Section 43-34-37 and shall result in sanctions increasing in severity from censure to temporary suspension of license to permanent revocation of license.

(c) Any violation of this article may be the basis for denying an application for, denying an application for the renewal of, or revoking any license, permit, certificate, or any other form of permission required to practice or engage in a trade, occupation, or profession.

(d) Any violation of this article by an individual in the employ and under the auspices of a licensed health care facility to which the management of said facility consents, knows, or should know may be the basis for denying an application for, denying an application for the renewal of, temporarily suspending, or permanently revoking any operational license, permit, certificate, or any other form of permission required to operate a medical or health care facility."

SECTION 3.
This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its becoming law without such approval.

SECTION 4.
All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.


Let's see what the babyeaters think about all of this...

From the very aptly named ScaryMommy.com:


'Personhood' Bills May Restrict Access To IVF Treatments

I understand they also own the domain name ScaredShitlessBabies.com but have no plans to develop the site...


Casey Berna had always dreamed of having a large family. When she and her husband started the process, she had no idea the challenges they would face in trying to meet that goal. Following her daughter’s birth through intrauterine insemination (IUI), Berna spent the next seven years trying to give her some siblings.

Let me help the morally obtuse (and those who make boatloads of cash from killing kids in this way) read the next paragraph.


Thirty-four embryos (kids), five miscarriages (kids), three rounds of in vitro fertilization (IVF) (Wait. Are the 39 dead children just mentioned included in this?) , two IUIs (kids), one frozen embryo (kid) transfer (FET), and zero viable (Even I, Your Humble Narrator, can't figure out what that word means. But I do know one thing - somebody got paid a lot of money for it. - F.G.) pregnancies later, Berna closed the chapter of her search to build her family with her own genetics.

Berna and her husband are part of the 1 in 8 couples who will face infertility in their lifetimes. Like millions of other families, Berna was able to try to grow her family thanks to advances made by reproductive medicine. While assisted reproductive technology has helped those with infertility achieve their reproductive goals, these advancements are currently under threat by state and federal “personhood” bills.

The big lie these unfortunate couples are swallowing is this: "It is ok to create a whole bunch of children for yourselves, and destroy all of those still alive after you get pregnant. Save one."

Or, "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Ha-ha-ha."

Of course, life is much, much easier if you don't think about all the consequences of your actions.

Death, however, is a bit a bitch when it comes to consequences.


Since 2008, at least 10 bills have been introduced at the state level that look to define human life starting at the moment of conception. Staunch opposition from the infertility community, who fear defining personhood jeopardizes reproductive medicine, has defeated each and every bill at the state level.


Now, with two personhood bills introduced this year at the federal level, infertility advocates are gearing up once again to fight for their right to build a family.

***

In 2009, Nadya Suleman, better known as “Octomom,” gave birth to eight children through IVF after 12 embryos were transferred into her uterus. This practice, an extreme departure from the typical standard of care, resulted in her doctor losing his medical license and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine tightening its guidelines for embryo transfers.

It also caught the attention of lawmakers in Georgia, some 2,000 miles away from Suleman’s home state of California.


That March, two months after Suleman gave birth, the “Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos Act” was introduced in Georgia’s legislature. The bill, which set to limit the number of embryos Georgia physicians could implant in a given cycle, also included language set to define personhood. This bill was not the first attempt to establish personhood. In 2008, Colorado included a ballot initiative which would give an embryo rights from the moment of conception. The Georgia bill, however, was one of the first to add personhood language into a different piece of legislation.

“In the language of the bill was a very clear sentence that basically said that inherently the embryo was a human life in and of itself and had its own rights beyond that of the parents,” Andrew Toledo, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist in Atlanta, Georgia, told The Mighty. “It was the devil in the details, but it was there. It was really their attempt to sneak personhood into a bill,” he said.

INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"

Personhood bills are largely thought of as a way of restricting abortions and challenging the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade. Experts, however, warn that extending rights to embryos will limit those practicing and those seeking infertility treatment.

INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"



Advocating for patients and physicians in Oklahoma, targeted as the state most likely to pass a personhood bill, is Eli Reshef, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist in Oklahoma City.

“Over the years of fighting personhood legislation, I realized that many of the supporters of personhood legislation are poorly informed about the unintended consequences of such legislation,” Reshef said. “Giving embryos the same rights as adults — the cornerstone of such legislation and a clear effort to outlaw abortions — creates various situations that place the practice of IVF at risk.”

INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"

Reshef said only 30% of embryos will be born as babies; the rest will either miscarry or fail to implant. Without the ability to consent to assisted reproductive technology, there are dozens of scenarios where embryos that have yet to be implanted could be deemed at risk.

That is a 70% kill rate of the children they decide to "use". How many more are kept frozen until their parents decide to throw them away?



“It’s going to prevent us from doing IVF because no lab tech in their right mind will be willing to stand the risk of being accused of murder if they drop a dish with embryos in the lab, inadvertently,” he added.

INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"

Beyond shutting down IVF practices, personhood bills would change how reproductive endocrinologists practice medicine, said Toledo, who’s part of the coalition of physicians who fought Georgia’s personhood bill, adding: “We would freeze a lot more eggs unfertilized, and we would only fertilize the eggs we hoped we were going to transfer. It would lower pregnancy rates, because you have less options now, and it would create more cost for patients because they would have to go through more cycles to be successful.”

INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"

Should a personhood bill become law, advances in IVF would be set back decades, according to Toledo, and physicians would be required to rely on techniques used in the early ’80s when IVF first came to the U.S. Instead of joining sperm and egg in the lab, more physicians would revert to gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) — a surgical procedure where eggs are removed from a woman’s ovary and placed, along with sperm, in the fallopian tubes, thus increasing the rate of ectopic and tubal pregnancies.

INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"



Even ectopic pregnancies — nonviable pregnancies that occur outside of the uterus and threaten the life of the mother — raise questions from reproductive physicians. “What about ectopic pregnancies that are viable and place the pregnant person’s health at risk, yet surgical or medical intervention may be construed as killing a person?” Reshef asked.

INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"

These questions and more remain unanswered by current personhood bills, many of which are only a few sentences long and lack explicit protections for those seeking IVF.

INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"

It’s unlikely a personhood bill could include satisfactory language protecting those seeking or practicing IVF from prosecution, said Barbara Collura, the president and CEO of Resolve: The National Infertility Association. “I have never seen any carved out protection for IVF in a personhood legislation that actually worked,” she added, “but I will tell you that at the state level when we’ve seen legislators try and amend or draft it, it is extremely difficult.”

INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"

In 2012, Virginia, where Collura lives, tried to pass HB1, its own version of a personhood bill. “The backstory on that was that a chair on a key committee had done IVF, so there was an attempt to carve out IVF,” Collura told The Mighty. But despite an attempt to add protections, “the carve-out was completely inadequate.”

Despite testimonies from those living with infertility and members of Resolve, HB1 passed committee. “It’s callous and unfair to take legislation aimed at those who don’t want children to devastatingly affect pro-family infertility patients’ rights to treat their disease,” Whitney Anderson, who testified against Virginia’s bill, told The Mighty. “I didn’t choose to be infertile. There is safe (For whom, Madame? - F.G.) and effective treatment available and I should be allowed access to the best standard of care. I was lucky enough to become a mother using IVF, and my heart hurts thinking about how that opportunity could be taken away.”

After making it out of committee, HB1 died in a special vote on Virginia’s Senate floor.


***

There are currently two personhood bills pending at the federal level — H.R.586 “Sanctity of Human Life Act” sponsored by Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA) and H.R.681 “Life at Conception Act,” sponsored by Rep. Alexander Mooney (R-WV). While the bills have made little progress, their existence and support — 29 co-sponsors for H.R.586 and 62 co-sponsors for H.R.681 — have infertility advocates concerned.

“Going through infertility for me was like being knocked down many times a day over and over, year after year and having to get back up each time knowing you’re about to get another punch to the gut,” Anderson said. “I can’t imagine being in the middle of an IVF cycle with all of my hopes and dreams wrapped up in that and then having to curtail the cycle, not to mention losing $10,000 to $15,000 that most people have to pay 100% out-of-pocket for. I would have been devastated.”

Like I've been telling you, some ghouls are getting rich off this shit.

Neither bill mentions any protections for those seeking or providing infertility treatments. The only reference to in vitro fertilization comes in Rep Hice’s bill, H.R.586, which states that human life includes any method of fertilization including cloning, giving embryos created in the lab the same rights as their parents.

“Infertility was one of the most challenging, physical and emotional events that my husband and I ever had to endure,” Berna said. “When it really comes down to it, we’re all just fighting for the freedom to make medical decisions with our doctors and not have politicians involved making stressful situations more stressful.”

Nobody has the right to kill in order to get what they want.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

No comments:

About Me

My photo
First of all, the word is SEX, not GENDER. If you are ever tempted to use the word GENDER, don't. The word is SEX! SEX! SEX! SEX! For example: "My sex is male." is correct. "My gender is male." means nothing. Look it up. What kind of sick neo-Puritan nonsense is this? Idiot left-fascists, get your blood-soaked paws off the English language. Hence I am choosing "male" under protest.

Labels

Blog Archive