Personhood and IVF #1

One of the frequently asked questions about Personhood is how it will impact In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). We received one such question via email a while back from a concerned husband & father.  It began :
I have a few questions about your initiative because it could possibly have a direct effect on certain aspects of my life.  You see, my wife and I have been trying to have children for over two years now.  This past spring we had some fertility testing performed, and the results of those tests indicate that, because of tubal problems, the only way for us to have children of our own is through in vitro fertilization(IVF).  In case you’re not familiar with IVF, it’s a rather expensive process (usually about $10,000-$20,000) that is rarely covered by health insurance policies; in this process, the woman self-administers a prescribed regimen of hormones, and as an ideal result, she will develop 8-12 follicles (which hopefully translates into 8-12 eggs) in one cycle, as opposed to one or, occasionally, two eggs.  These 8-12 eggs are retrieved from her ovaries after they have sufficiently matured, and they are fertilized in a laboratory with the man’s semen and allowed to mature for a few days.  After these few days, the doctor determines which two fertilized embryos are maturing the most, and these two best embryos are then transferred back to the woman’s uterus in hopes of successful implantation—positive pregnancy—and delivery. 

 My concern is in regards to the embryos that were not transferred; the fertilized embryos can be frozen for a significant period of time, and the purpose of this is so that when my wife and I decide that we want another child, we can use the embryos we already have (which is much less expensive) instead of going through the whole process again.   The freezing of our embryos serves as sort of check-point for us, so if the first two fail to implant into her uterus, for whatever reason, we don’t have to completely start over—we can try transferring the embryos we already have, and if we decide we don’t need any more children, we can donate them to another couple that requires donor eggs to conceive.  I think the probability for implantation is somewhere around 60% (at least, for our age group), so we have a much better than average chance of having twins than the average couple, but this also means that both of the embryos have a 40% chance of failing to implant.  Obviously, the ability to freeze embryos can be a huge asset to any couple that requires the aid of IVF to conceive children.

Then asked the hard questions:
The point toward which I’ve been working is this:  Does your initiative address fertility treatments?  Is there anything about your proposed amendment that would work against the efforts and expenses that my wife and I have waged toward starting a family of our own?  Will your initiative make our life more difficult? I am not a lawyer, but if your initiative doesn’t have a clause or exemptions regarding fertility treatments, it probably needs such, and if it purposefully and thoughtfully lacks such exemptions, I have a feeling that you likely won’t be able to accumulate whatever majority you need to pass this initiative—about 1 in10 couples have some sort of fertility problem

Here was our initial response:
Mr. ****,

Thank you for your thoughtful email.

A number of families in our church & circle of aquaintences that we
love dearly also struggle with infertility, so I know how difficult &
painful this can be.

I have not heard the 1 in 10 number you used, but have no doubt that
this is accurate (I would have actually guessed a little higher.)

Since your letter was very personal, thoughtful, and detailed i do not
want to give you a less than personal, compassionate, adequate,
thorough response.

I  will write a more thorough reply if you’d like, but the short answer is the Personhoid Amendment does not directly address
IVF & the particular difficulties you mentioned – positively or
negatively. This was intentional, but not for the reasons you alluded
to.

An amendment of this nature is by necessity not overly broad and does
not even attempt to deal with every possible scenario. The legislature
and the courts will still have to wrestle with the application of the
law to specific circumstances.
IVF
stem cell research
some forms of birth controll
embryo adoption
(and many more areas)
all may be touched by this law, but none are directly addressed.

The Personhood Amendment would prevent the intentional taking of a
life, but it would not adress miscarriage or a situation like yours
any more than our current laws against murder mean someone is charged
when a person dies of a disease in a hospital or laws against child
abuse would be used against parents of a child who inherited a genetic
illness.

We are merely giving lawmakers framework in which to operate and make
these type of decisions. This is no different than any enumerated
right in a bill of rights or constitution or definition in a contract
would.
The Personhood Amendment sets the parameters – lawmakers, judges,
members of the excutive branch are still charged with the duty of
dealing with the myriad of possible applications.

Our amendment simply gives a definition to a term that has henceforth
been ambigous (at great human cost).

Hope this helps. I will try to get a more specific answer soon.
Afterwords, (or now) you can feel free to call me for clarification.

My family & I will pray for you & your wife tonight.

Les Riley

4 responses to “Personhood and IVF #1

  1. Hi, my name is Carol Arens and I am from Lansing Michigan, and I want to say that as a fellow pro-lifer I am behind what you guys are trying to do in passing this Pro-Life Amendment 100%, and I am praying that it passes!!!! Also as a Catholic Christian I would like to share some information that may very well be helpful for couples who are facing infertility and may have some questions regarding how the amendment may effect their chances of having a family, I know of some methods of Modern Natural Family Planning methods such as as the Billings Ovulation Method, The Creighton Model, etc that are based on studying the natural signs that a woman’s body gives indicating fertility, unlike the old Rhythme Method these methods

    recognize that the small window of fertility each month can vary from

    to woman and from month to month. I have attended a seminar on the Creighton Model given by the wife of a couple who faced this very problem of infertility at St. Thomas Aquinas Parish here in East Lansing a while back, she mentioned that she and her husband tried everything including expensive fertility treatments, IVF etc, and then she heard about the Creighton Model of NFP and so they tried that, and after about a month or so of charting they found out that they were expecting a child, they now have two children, and they help other couples facing this problem, also she mentioned Dr. Hilgers who specializes Natural Reproductive Medicine at the Pope Paul Institute in Omaha Nebraska and is the founder of NaproTechnology which works to study the modern methods of Natural Family Planning and works with the way a woman’s body functions naturally and can solve medical problems such as infertility, repetitive miscarriage, Polycystic Ovarian syndrome, ovarian cysts, by getting to the very root of what may very well be causing these problems Hope this information helps May God Bless you all and Keep up the good work!!! Sincerely in Christ Carol Arens

  2. I agree with the amendment, however feel that it should be instituted in phases. There are countless people in our state who have frozen embryos for the hope of getting pregnant. My sister is one. She is a loving, caring, God fearing woman. However, she does not have the funds to pay “rent” (if you will) to house these eggs. She also lacks the funds to implant them at this time (due to a failed previous attempt and two tubal pregnancies before that – one of which without insurance that required extensive surgery). In cases such as these, this amendment will declare her a murderer if she disposes of them (despite not wanting to) or require her to pay a lot of money that she doesn’t have. I understand your point in making the amendment ambiguous, however disagree with disregard to the widespread implications. I would propose a clause to follow directing tax dollars (even those for planned parenthood) be used to help alleviate the financial strain that this sudden change would place on so many tax-paying (and God-fearing) citizens. This is something that needs to be addressed. I’ve not decided yet how I will vote as this issue causes me great concern (albeit something I wholeheartedly agree with).

  3. Tell me how and I’m in.

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s