Thanks for the reminder about Senator Duckworth’s proposed legislation. The fact that not a single Republicans Senator has signed on as co-sponsor underscores the fact that Trump will simply waive the Executive Order around to show how much he “accomplished.”
The Alabama Supreme Court based their ruling on IVF on garbage science or what could be called non-science. Having a background in both medical and scientific fields anytime we use scientific or medical jargon it must always be precise. When the SC of Alabama referred to the cryogenically frozen embryos as “Extrauterine Children” they could not have been more sloppy in the use of that terminology. Extrauterine is a term that means outside the uterus. Even the context of this term is incorrect. In IVF the female gametes are harvested after the ovaries are stimulated by certain hormones. The eggs are then fertilized outside of the female body then they are either frozen or transferred to the uterus. No fertilization is occurring internally inside the female’s body as this term “extrauterine” is implied by the court. If anything the proper terminology for a frozen embryo would be to call it a cryogenically frozen Extra-Corporal embryo. Extra-Corporal would refer to something that is outside of the body.
We’re referring to a specific type of assisted reproductive technology or ART when we refer to IVF. This is precise terminology that is used in reference to any specific scientific or medical field and it absolutely does matter when we’re referring to its relationship between science, religion and legal issues. Sloppiness with scientific or medical terminology can change the meaning of the point you are arguing.
Basically what they did, was to gaslight their way into making a ruling for fetal personhood. They used inaccurate and imprecise language to justify their decision. I believe the ruling can be challenged by a few good language precise lawyers and a few good scientists on standby.
I consider IVF to be a personal choice, not a medical necessity and thus am not sure that it's something that should have insurance coverage which is subsidized by taxpayers.
1. To do PGT-M testing to stop the passing of a genetic disorder, such as Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
2. To use ART that assists males with limited sperm due to earlier testicular cancer in which natural conception or IUI are not possible.
3. To allow same-sex couples to have a biologically related child.
4. To manage situations where RPL (repeated pregnancy loss) has occurred.
5. To help women with diminished ova due to cancer or other conditions.
Insurance covers many things, including medications and treatments that I will never need or use, but I am glad they are covered for others. And these laws will either be created to help those who use ART/IVF or hurt them (for example, if they make "fetal personhood" then IVF will cease to exist). The fake president's IVF policy is nothing but BS. Tammy Duckworth (who used IVF) has a much better bill that they won't sign. As it stands now, only rich people or well insured people, can use this amazing and useful technology without going broke.
Fair enough. As it is, though, IVF is only available to people who have a lot of disposable income, or good health insurance. And people who would have no hesitation about adopting are running into discriminatory laws. I think we could make a lot of progress if we tightened up the laws on who can adopt children (including single people, same-sex couples, low income people, and people with certain disabilities.)Then those groups would not feel they have to undergo IVF in order to have a stronger legal claim on their children. And of course we need to make very sure that language in pro-IVF legislation doesn't provide a back door opportunity to ban abortion. I hope reasonable Americans can agree on those goals, at least.
Obsessed with becoming parents? As opposed to those who made free sex babies after a night at the bar? Or those who had their fifth baby when the father demanded more sex? Please do not make snarky comments about IVF users if you don't know their circumstances.
I don't understand and it has not been explained as far as I can see, why if in Alabama embryos are considered children they are not able to be claimed as dependents on tax returns. If we are going to treat them as kids in one area it should apply to all areas, right?
I think the real danger is in the concept of "fetal personhood". If a woman has a miscarriage and she is poor, of color, and any other racist label, an overzealous prosecutor could bring her up on manslaughter charges for failure to get proper prenatal medical care, never mind that the care is unavailable or she can't afford it. This could lead to all kinds of problems.
First, there is only a vague statement by the felon about IVF, but I can assure you that the government will never pay for it. At the best they would require some coverage by insurance companies. And believe me, it isn't "elective" for most couples, such as a woman without tubes. If they really did get insurance coverage, it would be no different than requiring insurance to cover cancer treatments with those with pre-existing conditions.
I think this is all a part of the trump, musk and vance idea of "having more babies". The republican idea is to have more babies but not pay for them once they are born.
Thanks for the reminder about Senator Duckworth’s proposed legislation. The fact that not a single Republicans Senator has signed on as co-sponsor underscores the fact that Trump will simply waive the Executive Order around to show how much he “accomplished.”
The Alabama Supreme Court based their ruling on IVF on garbage science or what could be called non-science. Having a background in both medical and scientific fields anytime we use scientific or medical jargon it must always be precise. When the SC of Alabama referred to the cryogenically frozen embryos as “Extrauterine Children” they could not have been more sloppy in the use of that terminology. Extrauterine is a term that means outside the uterus. Even the context of this term is incorrect. In IVF the female gametes are harvested after the ovaries are stimulated by certain hormones. The eggs are then fertilized outside of the female body then they are either frozen or transferred to the uterus. No fertilization is occurring internally inside the female’s body as this term “extrauterine” is implied by the court. If anything the proper terminology for a frozen embryo would be to call it a cryogenically frozen Extra-Corporal embryo. Extra-Corporal would refer to something that is outside of the body.
We’re referring to a specific type of assisted reproductive technology or ART when we refer to IVF. This is precise terminology that is used in reference to any specific scientific or medical field and it absolutely does matter when we’re referring to its relationship between science, religion and legal issues. Sloppiness with scientific or medical terminology can change the meaning of the point you are arguing.
Basically what they did, was to gaslight their way into making a ruling for fetal personhood. They used inaccurate and imprecise language to justify their decision. I believe the ruling can be challenged by a few good language precise lawyers and a few good scientists on standby.
I consider IVF to be a personal choice, not a medical necessity and thus am not sure that it's something that should have insurance coverage which is subsidized by taxpayers.
Here are some reasons for using IVF:
1. To do PGT-M testing to stop the passing of a genetic disorder, such as Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
2. To use ART that assists males with limited sperm due to earlier testicular cancer in which natural conception or IUI are not possible.
3. To allow same-sex couples to have a biologically related child.
4. To manage situations where RPL (repeated pregnancy loss) has occurred.
5. To help women with diminished ova due to cancer or other conditions.
Insurance covers many things, including medications and treatments that I will never need or use, but I am glad they are covered for others. And these laws will either be created to help those who use ART/IVF or hurt them (for example, if they make "fetal personhood" then IVF will cease to exist). The fake president's IVF policy is nothing but BS. Tammy Duckworth (who used IVF) has a much better bill that they won't sign. As it stands now, only rich people or well insured people, can use this amazing and useful technology without going broke.
Fair enough. As it is, though, IVF is only available to people who have a lot of disposable income, or good health insurance. And people who would have no hesitation about adopting are running into discriminatory laws. I think we could make a lot of progress if we tightened up the laws on who can adopt children (including single people, same-sex couples, low income people, and people with certain disabilities.)Then those groups would not feel they have to undergo IVF in order to have a stronger legal claim on their children. And of course we need to make very sure that language in pro-IVF legislation doesn't provide a back door opportunity to ban abortion. I hope reasonable Americans can agree on those goals, at least.
Curious. Do you have children? Do you know any of the myriad reasons why people use IVF?
People can, and do, lead happy, fulfilling lives without having children.
I frankly don't see why the government should be subsidizing people who are obsessed with becoming parents,for their own reasons.
Obsessed with becoming parents? As opposed to those who made free sex babies after a night at the bar? Or those who had their fifth baby when the father demanded more sex? Please do not make snarky comments about IVF users if you don't know their circumstances.
Elon is ready to do his part with IVF. He's ready to lend a hand to the cause.
🤣🤣😭😱🤦♀️ Patrick remember when he made that creepy remark to Taylor Swift that he would " give her a child "? 🤮. He's beyond disgusting
He is a degenerate.
I see what you did there. ;)
I don't understand and it has not been explained as far as I can see, why if in Alabama embryos are considered children they are not able to be claimed as dependents on tax returns. If we are going to treat them as kids in one area it should apply to all areas, right?
I think the real danger is in the concept of "fetal personhood". If a woman has a miscarriage and she is poor, of color, and any other racist label, an overzealous prosecutor could bring her up on manslaughter charges for failure to get proper prenatal medical care, never mind that the care is unavailable or she can't afford it. This could lead to all kinds of problems.
IVF is elective and very expensive. With huge cuts coming to Medicaid, I don't think that tax dollars should pay for it.
First, there is only a vague statement by the felon about IVF, but I can assure you that the government will never pay for it. At the best they would require some coverage by insurance companies. And believe me, it isn't "elective" for most couples, such as a woman without tubes. If they really did get insurance coverage, it would be no different than requiring insurance to cover cancer treatments with those with pre-existing conditions.
I think this is all a part of the trump, musk and vance idea of "having more babies". The republican idea is to have more babies but not pay for them once they are born.
Musk has had most of his children by IVF