Political Insider

By B

February 18, 2009 8:52 AM | Link to this

If you have a good doctor, the state shouldn’t have to regulate anything. I went through IVF and my doctor refused to put in more than three embryos, and that was only due to a very special circumstance. He said if anyone asks for more than two to be transferred (unless specific circumstances warrant it), he tells them to find a new doctor. This octuplet doctor is nothing more than a quack out for money. He should lose his medical license.

By debra l

February 18, 2009 8:58 AM | Link to this

The AMA needs to do a much better job of self regulating its members!

By K

February 18, 2009 9:13 AM | Link to this

This is bad legislation. There are women who have more embryos created in order to be frozen for a later time. I went through numerous IVF cycles where embryos were transferred, but none implanted (i.e. no pregnancy). One of my big regrets during that time was that I did not have any embryos to attempt to implant later. Without frozen embryos, the painful process to create the embryos has to be repeated over and over again, which is not healthy for the woman. This should be an issue that is self-regulated within the medical community.

By Runnerat43

February 18, 2009 9:27 AM | Link to this

I also agree that this is bad legistlation. The medical community should police itself and if there are currently standards for the number of embryos that should be safely implanted (What I keep hearing is no more than 2 at a time), then enforce those. I question the judgement of the fertility specialist in the Suleman case, and the CA Medical Board is already investigating him. I would like to see how this plays out first.

By olderthanwiser

February 18, 2009 9:40 AM | Link to this

The government currently “requires” (regulates) IVF clinics. They are required to report their successes. A patient shopping for a fertility clinic will naturally select the one with the most “successes”.

The limit of three reflects the average of what the clinics in Georgia are reporting ON AVERAGE to the CDC. The problem is that even SART, the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology is calling for less embryos to be transfered then the GA clinics are currently doing.

The UK has discovered that doctors routinely implant more than is healthy for the mother and subsequent children, as a result they are dropping the number from 2 to 1, nationally.

It is a little disingenuous for the public to call for the clinics to regulate themselves when their baseline is profit! Something about the “fox guarding the hen house.”

By Reality Check

February 18, 2009 9:43 AM | Link to this

What ever happened to individual freedom? Where do we go next? Do we limit how many girls or boys are born? Maybe even limit the number of blondes. I don’t agree with her choices, but It her choice!!! The proceedure was legal and there has been no charges other that anything other than their judgment was off base. Grow up folks!! Stay out of that womans belly. I know of a family that has 18 children. Do we tell them that they have to many kids as well?

By Rusty

February 18, 2009 9:44 AM | Link to this

Oh,good God, somebody needs to do something before these parasites eat us alive.

By mystery poster

February 18, 2009 9:46 AM | Link to this

B: You can’t have it both ways. If the state shouldn’t regulate it, how should the doctor lose his license?

By Josh Barnett

February 18, 2009 9:53 AM | Link to this

I don’t know if I disagree with it. Although it ultimately IS her choice, I think we should police ourselves on the number of children we have. The world is overpopulated as it is and we are fast running out of resources. In this case, something should have been done because this lady was selfish to the extent that she only did this because of her WANT for more babies… There is NO WAY she will be able to give those children the things that they need to grow into healthy adults. For example, do you think this lady is going to be able to send these children through college? I highly doubt it. We see everyday that people cannot police themselves. It sounds great and we want to be able to do it, but it doesn’t happen overall.

By Josh Barnett

February 18, 2009 9:59 AM | Link to this

I don’t know if I disagree with it. Although it ultimately IS her choice, I think we should police ourselves on the number of children we have. The world is overpopulated as it is and we are fast running out of resources. In this case, something should have been done because this lady was selfish to the extent that she only did this because of her WANT for more babies… There is NO WAY she will be able to give those children the things that they need to grow into healthy adults. For example, do you think this lady is going to be able to send these children through college? I highly doubt it. We see everyday that people cannot police themselves. It sounds great and we want to be able to do it, but it doesn’t happen overall.

By Puzzled

February 18, 2009 10:00 AM | Link to this

In a world where children can be killed in the birth canal, here we are wondering why a doctor implated more than embryo. Were they also considering of using “selective reduction” as an option ? The whole world is wacked — there is such a thing as adoption.

By MrLiberty

February 18, 2009 10:05 AM | Link to this

Just another step in the government control of all healthcare decisions.

The government wants us to believe that their involvement is “on behalf of the mother and the children” yet nothing could be farther from the truth. This is about another big brother power grab, just like the horrible medical monitoring provision in the recently signed “stimulus” package. Bureaucrats just arent content until them tell everyone how to live every aspect of their lives (republicans and democrats alike).

The public doesn’t care how many kids a women chooses to have. There were stories of multiple births from just fertility therapy long before in-vitro was developed. If the in-vitro process is followed to the letter, then additional fetuses are aborted to limit the number. Hipocrits among the riteous community are comfortable with making and kiling embryos in a petri dish, or fine with them dying in the womb once inplanted, but can’t stomach kiling them to insure a healthy pregnancy once implanted. As is there is really any difference. They seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. Its just so disgusting to listen to. The divine has a plan for infertile couples - they adopt or don’t pass on their genes.

The public’s problem with litters of 8 has to do with GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION in the first place. This woman is on public assistance. Her kids are getting disability (though we don’t know why). She received government provided medical care. And as far as anyone can tell, the state probably picked up the cost of invitro (multiple times). Of course lets not forget the great government subsidy that every parent gets, government provided schooling for virtually nothing out of pocket. Teh government has fostered a sense of entitlement and destroyed personal responsibility for ALL parents and this kid factory is just another glaring example of everything that is wrong with the system.

The cycle of government is just continuing here. First poorly thought out legislation is passed that steals from one group and gives to another creating a sense of entitlement. Then the process is abused, unintended consequences result, and more legislation must be passed. Every time, government power grows, individual liberty shrinks, and the cost to hard working taxpayers goes up and up and up.

Why don’t we try this instead. Get the government out of the business of subsidizing ALL BEHAVIOR, stop stealing from everyone through taxation, and force those without means to rely on the charitable giving of others for their needs. At least then those of us who give will be giving freely and will only have ourselves to blame when we are duped or taken advantage of. Now, we can all be assured that so long as congress is in session, we will be victimized.

And if you think dictating how many kids one can have is horrible, just wait until this administration gets its hands on the entire healthcare system in this country.

By elaine

February 18, 2009 10:08 AM | Link to this

Whatever happened to God deciding that a married women should have children at the appointed time with her husband - all of this tampering is just our generations desire to control every aspect of our life. Why should taxpayers have to keep paying for a sick women’s obsession with children - they are not like tatoos you just keep getting more of. She sees all the attention she is getting and is thriving on it. What about her ability to give the children the finacial and emotional support they will need as they get older. The doctor who did not properly evaluate her should be heavily fined for his lack of good judgement as well.

By lucylou

February 18, 2009 10:11 AM | Link to this

Let me preface my comments by saying I am not for abortion. I am, however, for a woman’s right to choose. This right is the one fundamental right people in this country do not understand. Women nor their bodies are under the control of common man-women control their bodies and the decisions they make, they must live with. They should always discuss their decision with their God, the father of the child, and think very long and hard about their decision. Talking to a professional may be beneficial too, but it is not for the Georgia legislature or US Congress to legislate morality or the decision women make concerning their bodies. Perhaps folks like Ralph Hudgens should sweep around his own back door first and stop trying to dictate/legislate what the rest of Georgia does. I bet if he went outside to his back porch he could find lots of things that needed to be swept off. I know when I check my back porch, I see that I need to be taking care of my own.

By Silverchief

February 18, 2009 10:15 AM | Link to this

Everytime something ain’t just right….THE Government wants to take control.

By FedUp

February 18, 2009 10:16 AM | Link to this

Why is the government paying for the first 6? I say everyone is entitled to “one mistake”, and government aid. After that first one, if you continue to reproduce, then welfare should be removed from the first one, and denied to the 2nd, 3rd, etc. This will cut down on the amount of fatherless children and the amount of welfare I am paying with MY taxes! Also, since I am required to give a urine test upon demand at my job (which pays the taxes for welfare), I think it is only fair that those receiving it pass a drug test before receiving a check. Those tests take 60 seconds. Dirty urine? No money. Simple. To much of my tax dollars is going to support drug addicts…the only reason they are having children is to collect the money and spend it on drugs.

I’m sorry if I offend those demanding “aid” (which is supposed to be TEMPORARY, not government support of you and your family as you think it is), but facts are facts.

By SucksToBeYou

February 18, 2009 10:48 AM | Link to this

Unmarried women must be forbidden from having these “scientific” procedures to create false pregnancies. If they get pregnant naturally (which is a very irresponsible decision), so be it - we can’t do anything about that. Let’s do our best as a society to help them raise as good a child as possible, but don’t take my money to abort them - I won’t stand for that. There is no room for further discussion on this.

By MrLiberty

February 18, 2009 10:58 AM | Link to this

There are going to be a lot of comments about the government paying for the first 6 kids and now these 8. Let’s review some simple math regarding government schools and see some other realities.

These are generalizations, your household costs may vary, but the point is the same, regardless of your circumstances.

A house appraised at $200,000 costs about $1000 in school taxes each year. The more the value, the higher the tax (yes, that is socialism). If you have no kids, you pay the same. If you have 1 kid you pay the same. If you have 14 kids you pay the same (yes, that is also socialism). In Georgia, the government pays about $7500 for each child per year. That means that unless you live in a VERY expensive house, you are paying very little compared to the cost of educating your child. Every additional child is another $7500 that isn’t paid in school taxes. Multiply that by 12 years and we are up to $90,000 per kid.

That money doesn’t come out of thin air. It must be taken from everyone else in society, either through taxes on business, income taxes, sales taxes, or whatever, and these costs are ultimately born by individuals, because businesses really don’t pay taxes, they just pass them on in costs. Additionally, parents who pay for private school on their own, or pay out additional costs for homeschooling must bear all of these costs as well. This represents a HUGE subsidy that promotes having children. Yes, there are plenty of other costs in raising children and I am not trying to diminsh them, but I am just pointing out that parents, except those that assume responsibility for their own child’s education, are getting subsidized for their choices.

How much of a role does this kind of subsidy play in every childbearing decision? What if every couple/parent actually had to incur the full costs of educating their children? What would be the outcome? How might that affect the birthrates of illegals or the poor or even the middle class? Where might they cut spending if education were their responsibilty? How different might society look. This is just another example of government social engineering. It is as wrong as welfare. It is taken involuntarily from some and given to others.

One cannot rightly criticize one subsidy without looking at all subsidies. They all distort the market, and all are improper in a truly free society.

By DLink

February 18, 2009 11:07 AM | Link to this

NO! Lawmakers don’t seem to care or be influenced by popular opinion whereas the private sector can apparently still run a doctor out of town on a rail. Tarred and feathered, as it were.

As bad an idea as letting government control stem cell research, it doesn’t achieve optimum goals. As others have said, let the free market reign.

By DLink

February 18, 2009 11:37 AM | Link to this

NO! Lawmakers don’t seem to care or be influenced by popular opinion whereas the private sector can apparently still run a doctor out of town on a rail. Tarred and feathered, as it were.

As bad an idea as letting government control stem cell research, it doesn’t achieve optimum goals. As others have said, let the free market reign.

By FedUp

February 18, 2009 11:56 AM | Link to this

I planned and SAVED for my 2 kids. I worked extra years to put money aside. My husband (yes, I was one of the few married/employed mothers) and I both had good jobs with good insurance coverage. My children were born out of LOVE for each other and LOVE for my children…yes, love for my children BEFORE they were born because we made SURE they would have everything they needed BEFORE they were even conceived. It’s called “responsibility” and “self respect”. Look them up. There are obviously a lot of people who don’t know the meaning of EITHER…and those are the ones I resent paying welfare to. If someone needs a hand-up rather than a hand-out, that’s fine. But to rely on the government to support your family for the rest of your life when you are young and able-bodied should be ILLEGAL. As I have said a hundred times…if you are young enough and healthy enough to reproduce faster than hamster, then you are young enough and healthy enough to go out and get a job to SUPPORT them yourself! Give them aid for a few months…give them employment tips and job leads (yes, plenty of places are hiring…you are NOT too good to work at McDonald’s)…give them birth control. I’d rather my taxes went to sex education and birth control than to support your family! And don’t get me started on the AIDS epidemic that taxpayers are also paying for because of these young men and women being promiscuous. THAT, my friends, is a matter of LIFE AND DEATH!

By Copyleft

February 18, 2009 12:03 PM | Link to this

IVF shouldn’t even be available. As long as there is even one unwanted child sitting in an orphanage, there’s no excuse for fertility treatments.

By Love Wisdom

February 18, 2009 2:35 PM | Link to this

Hi everyone,

I think the discussion on this blog has gotten way off the topic. First let me say that I have several family members that have struggled with infertility, so I have seen the struggle that women go thru.

However, the language of this bill does not indicate that women will no longer be able to undergo ivf treatment. It simply states that for those who do the state of Georgia needs to regulate the procedure in a way that is best for the mother and the child.

For instance, implanting six eggs into a woman’s womb is not safe for the mother or her children should she decide to keep them. Multiple births normally have a lower birth weight, amongst other developmental issues that put the children and the mother in a bad light.

I think Georgians need to ask themselves are the current laws on the books one’s that favor the fertility clinics or the women recieving the treatments?

We need to do whatever we can to protect women and legislation like this helps in that fight.

By Psychdoc

February 18, 2009 2:35 PM | Link to this

After reading the comments, somewhere they went off-line. I have read the posted legislation (SB 169), and I can’t see anything in it that affects a woman’s right to choose anything except to have more than 3 embryos implanted at a time. It is a commonsense regulation of an industry that has allowed its “greed” for profit to override its duty to protect the health and safety of the woman. Isn’t that something we all can support?

For all of you who voted for the Prez, you are all against “greed” in big business, aren’t you? Then why are you not against this big business of selling very desperate people something that rakes in the BIG BUCKS like IVF? Fertility clinic owners and fertility “doctors” don’t drive small cars or live in small houses, folks. How do you think they do that? From altruism of providing children to these infertile couples?

Finally, to all of you out there who have not come into the 21st century, there are already fertility clinics who are selling designer babies. All the couple has to do is choose the sperm and the egg and voila, McBaby!

By Love Wisdom

February 18, 2009 2:37 PM | Link to this

Hi everyone,

I think the discussion on this blog has gotten way off the topic. First let me say that I have several family members that have struggled with infertility, so I have seen the struggle that women go thru.

However, the language of this bill does not indicate that women will no longer be able to undergo ivf treatment. It simply states that for those who do the state of Georgia needs to regulate the procedure in a way that is best for the mother and the child.

For instance, implanting six eggs into a woman’s womb is not safe for the mother or her children should she decide to keep them. Multiple births normally have a lower birth weight, amongst other developmental issues that put the children and the mother in a bad light.

I think Georgians need to ask themselves are the current laws on the books one’s that favor the fertility clinics or the women recieving the treatments?

We need to do whatever we can to protect women and legislation like this helps in that fight.

By Love Wisdom

February 18, 2009 2:37 PM | Link to this

Hi everyone,

I think the discussion on this blog has gotten way off the topic. First let me say that I have several family members that have struggled with infertility, so I have seen the struggle that women go thru.

However, the language of this bill does not indicate that women will no longer be able to undergo ivf treatment. It simply states that for those who do the state of Georgia needs to regulate the procedure in a way that is best for the mother and the child.

For instance, implanting six eggs into a woman’s womb is not safe for the mother or her children should she decide to keep them. Multiple births normally have a lower birth weight, amongst other developmental issues that put the children and the mother in a bad light.

I think Georgians need to ask themselves are the current laws on the books one’s that favor the fertility clinics or the women recieving the treatments?

We need to do whatever we can to protect women and legislation like this helps in that fight.

By Love Wisdom

February 18, 2009 2:39 PM | Link to this

Hi everyone,

I think the discussion on this blog has gotten way off the topic. First let me say that I have several family members that have struggled with infertility, so I have seen the struggle that women go thru.

However, the language of this bill does not indicate that women will no longer be able to undergo ivf treatment. It simply states that for those who do the state of Georgia needs to regulate the procedure in a way that is best for the mother and the child.

For instance, implanting six eggs into a woman’s womb is not safe for the mother or her children should she decide to keep them. Multiple births normally have a lower birth weight, amongst other developmental issues that put the children and the mother in a bad light.

I think Georgians need to ask themselves are the current laws on the books one’s that favor the fertility clinics or the women recieving the treatments?

We need to do whatever we can to protect women and legislation like this helps in that fight.

By fultonrighty

February 18, 2009 4:51 PM | Link to this

As an infertile woman who went through some fertility treatments and then adopted, I can say these are not easy issues. But I fully support reasonable protections for women and tiny human beings. These embryos are not commodities to be handled like property or to be “played” like dice. They are individual, complete, tiny human beings with their own unique genes.

They are not potential human beings; they are already human beings with potential.

Let’s treat them with respect and dignity as we treat their mothers likewise. Neither should be prey to greedy practitioners who are upping their “success percentages” with implanting too many embryos at one time.

By L.L.

February 18, 2009 9:35 PM | Link to this

This is not an issue of limiting how many children a woman may ultimately have…we aren’t in China after all. This legislation is placing ethical guidelines and safe restraints on the IVF industry to do what is best for the health of the mother. Does anyone remember the Hippocratic Oath? Do the words “do no harm” ring a bell?

I am all for less government interference in our lives. However, when the IVF industry is based solely on “success” rates, how can we expect doctors to put the health of the women and children they serve first?

By barbyk

February 19, 2009 7:53 PM | Link to this

Just had a disturbing email from my rep- it would appear that raising thecigarette tax would cause bootlegging, crossing state lines, and all other horrors. when checking the tax per pack costs - it was interesting to see how many bordering states have $.50 or more differences in their taxes. Just finished checking with associates from three of these “border” states - they haven’t seen much pirating………. COULD IT BE THAT THE TOBACCO LOBBY (MONEY IN MY POCKET) HAS ANYTHNIG TO DO WITH THIS JOKE ON US. BUT WE WILL CUT EDUCATION AND SAFETY BE EMBARRASSED (IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHERE WE STAND - GOOGLE Cigarette tax by state - our ranking is similar to our education ranking