Your urgent and immediate action on two bills introduced in the Georgia State Senate is of vital importance.

In talking with Evelina, who is in GA (and on the EDSPA Board) and very involved with fighting this (which may be voted into law by next Thursday!) This bill is about only being able to MAKE 2 or 3 embryos at a TIME....not just what you can transfer. So if you are under 40 and have 12 eggs, only 2 can be fertilized...if you are over 40 then only 3 can be fertilized! No more then that....We need to clearly get the truth of this bill a crossed to everyone because who is going to want to make just 2 or 3 embryos at a time? Who can pick and choose which eggs would be the best to fertilize AND then there would be NO EMBRYOS LEFT for freezing! (perhaps you can freeze the eggs however that is not perfected yet and the cost....well....it just wouldn't be worth it) Apparently it's the right to lifers who are pouring money into this GA bill so that there will/would be no more 'babies on ice"...

On another note, if this bill passes I hear that the ASRM will consider moving the Oct. meeting to another location.

Please forgive me for posting this but I wanted everyone to read this!
Sharon LaMothe (comments welcome!)

This was posted by Mark Perloe~

Your urgent and immediate action on two bills introduced in the Georgia State Senate is of vital importance.

The Georgia Senate Health and Human Services Committee will hold a hearing on two bills: SB 169 and SB 204 this Thursday, March 5, at 9:00 AM in Room 450 of the State Capitol. At the hearing, the committee will hear testimony on the bills. Reproductive medicine physicians from across the state, along with Resolve and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) oppose both of the bills. The hearing is open to the public and we encourages you to attend the hearing and send a letter to the Committee members before Thursday. To send a letter immediately, click here.

Senate Bill 169 would restrict doctors' ability to perform IVF in accordance with best medical standards. Here are the key provisions:
- No more than 2 or 3 eggs could ever be fertilized in a cycle; if a woman produced more eggs, they still could not be used.
- Only 2 embryos could ever be transferred to the uterus, unless the woman is age 40 or over (then a max of 3).
- No extra embryos could be cryopreserved. If they are created, they have to be transferred.
- No financial relief, such as insurance coverage, is proposed to help with the added financial burden of using less effective treatment. Patients will still have to pay out of pocket for less effective treatment.
- Bans all financial compensation for donor gametes, such as egg donor, sperm donor, or embryo donation, which would reduce the pool of available donors in Georgia.

SB 204 is an embryo adoption bill. It would subject embryo donation to all the same provisions as required by law for adoption of a child. This would subject infertility patients needing an embryo donation to go through the judicial proceedings, home visits, and other procedures required for an adoption. Such treatment is not appropriate nor is it needed for embryo donation.

If you care about open access to the best care possible, let the Committee members know before Thursday that you oppose these two bills. To send a letter or fax to the Committee, simply click here http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://secure2.convio.net%2Fres%2Fsite%2FAdvocacy%3Fcmd%3Ddisplay%26page%3DUserAction%26id%3D219 for a letter template that will be automatically sent to each of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee members. You can also call your state Senator even if they are not on the Committee and tell them you oppose these two bills. A full list of the Committee members can be found by clicking on the link below, then clicking on the Senators name for a link to their direct contact information: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.legis.ga.gov%2Flegis%2F2009_10%2Fsenate%2Fhealth.php

Please be respectful in all communications to the elected officials and their staff. Please remember that rude communications work against our interests.

Thank you for taking action today and showing the Georgia Senate that you care about open and available access to care for the women and men diagnosed with infertility in the state of Georgia.

To send a letter to the Committee members immediately, click here. http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://secure2.convio.net%2Fres%2Fsite%2FAdvocacy%3Fcmd%3Ddisplay%26page%3DUserAction%26id%3D219


To view the full text of the bills please follow the links below:

SB 169: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.legis.state.ga.us%2Flegis%2F2009_10%2Fsum%2Fsb169.htm

SB 204: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.legis.state.ga.us%2Flegis%2F2009_10%2Fsum%2Fsb204.htm


Georgia Economic Impact
• More than $200 million in revenue and countless jobs would be lost by Georgia medical practices, psychologists, lawyers, pharmacists, as well as by those in the restaurant and lodging industry who provide services to those traveling for care.
• An expected 50-60% drop in live births associated with legislation limiting the number of oocytes fertilized or transferred would create a powerful incentive for Georgia couples to seek care outside Georgia. Alternatively, they would have to consider multiple treatment cycles to achieve the same success rate as we now see. The cost for additional treatment cycles as well as lost productivity due to time away from jobs can not be immediately calculated.
• Embryo donation is the most a cost effective option for many couples hoping to build a family. Yet this legislation would impose additional legal expenses and home studies that would create a significant cost barrier for many with limited financial resources. As a result this option would no longer be available for many couples
• The majority of higher order multiple pregnancies [triplets or more] result from ovulation induction and not IVF. This legislation will result in a marked decrease in local IVF services and a dramatic increase in the number of ovulation induction cycles with the higher risk of multiple births and the resultant costs.
• The American Society of Reproductive Medicine is planning its annual meeting in Atlanta this fall. Approximately 5,000 people are expected to attend. Passing this legislation will induce many to stay at home. The resultant revenue loss for our convention and travel industry comes at a very difficult time for our economy.
• This legislation will preclude the use of preimplantation embryo screening to prevent diseases such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, Huntington’s diease and other genetic conditions that result in an enormous financial burden to the individual and often to the state to provide ongoing medical care.
• The financial cost of defending court challenges to HBB during an economic downturn is a needless tax on government funds.
• Biotech industry seeking to relocate will likely have second thoughts about moving to Georgia with passage of this legislation.

Unanswered Questions
• Will cryopreserved embryos that already exist be subject to this law?
• Will this law be applicable to embryos that have been created in another state?
• Will this law apply if the individuals are not Georgia state residents?
• Does this law allow for inheritance rights for embryos deemed to be children?
• Are embryos entitled to social security survivor benefits?
• Will embryos be entitled to child support in the case of divorce to cover the expense of storage?
• Will women who have undergone embryo transfer be able to use the HOV lane….there is an additional “child” on board.
• What happens to embryos that were frozen more than two at a time?
• What about agencies that charge a fee to match recipients and embryo donors while not providing a medical service? Will this be considered the same as selling a baby?
• If an embryo has been frozen longer than 18 years is it still a child? How do you calculate a child's age if the embryo is 20 years old, but the child was born two years ago, how old is the child?
• Not too infrequently, a one cell embryo splits resulting in twins. As this bill describes a single cell embryo as a child do we consider these identical twins as one child or two?
• If an embryo has been frozen longer than 18 years is it still a child? How do you calculate a child's age if the embryo is 20 years old, but the child was born two years ago, are we dealing with a child or an adult?
• The bill states that its purpose is to promote the best interest of the child. As cryopreserved embryos are classified as children and only 20-30% of embryo transfers results in pregnancy, we must ask if this means all embryos should undergo cryopreservation rather than transferring them to avoid the 80% loss rate for these "children"?
--------------------

EDSPA Comments on the California Octuplet Case

Over recent years medical research has pointed out the benefits of reducing the number of embryos transferred during the IVF cycle with a marked reduction in the number of higher order multiple births. ORLANDO, FL, February 22, 2009 /24-7PressRelease/ -- The Egg Donation and Surrogacy Professional Association (EDSPA), as a multidisciplinary organization that promotes cooperation, education and professional ethics in the matters of gestational carriers, traditional surrogacy, egg, sperm and embryo donation, and related areas, would like to support the further investigation by the medical and legal community into the circumstances surrounding the conception of the octuplets and ethical practices that were involved.

Over the last decade, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) have worked diligently to reduce the number of high order multiple births resulting from IVF treatments. They have produced guidelines restricting the number of embryos transferred during IVF. Published research confirms that these guidelines have led to fewer embryos being transferred and a marked reduction in the number of high order multiple births.

EDSPA Board of Directors:
Robert T. Terenzio, Esq., Chairman of the Board
Evelina Weidman Sterling, Chair Education/Consulting
Souad Dreyfus, Chair Egg Donation
Sharon LaMothe, Chair Surrogacy
Andrea Bryman, LMFT, Chair Medical/Psychology
Marna Gatlin, Chair Non-Profit
Theresa M Erickson, Esq., Chair Member at Large

About EDSPA

The Egg Donation and Surrogacy Professional Association accomplishes it's mission by providing a forum for education, communication and advocacy on behalf of patients, physicians, attorneys, agencies and affiliated professionals in the field of Third Party Family Formation.

Women warned not to freeze their eggs for social reasons

I wrote about this topic a few articles ago but wanted to share this one out of the UK with you. What are your thoughts?

Sharon
www.InfertilityAnswers.net

Women warned not to freeze their eggs for social reasons

William Fletcher
Progress Educational Trust
09 February 2009

The UK's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the British Fertility Society have released a joint statement expressing serious concerns about women who freeze their eggs for non-medical reasons such as pursuit of their career. The success rate for pregnancies involving eggs that were frozen is very low and babies conceived in this manner may be less healthy than those from fresh eggs.

'The image that's portrayed is that a woman in her late 20s or early 30s can establish a relationship 10 or 15 years later and then take the eggs out of the freezer, fertilize them with the partner's sperm and have the baby', says Professor Bill Ledger, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Sheffield University and a member of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA). 'The chance of a baby from a frozen egg with vitrification is less than 6 per cent per egg. By doing the egg freezing for social reasons, they are taking a huge gamble for their future', he added.

As well as low success rates Professor Ledger pointed out that babies that are born from frozen eggs could be less healthy than those conceived from fresh eggs and warned that: 'We should be very careful about performing medical procedures on healthy people'. He believes that is ethically questionable for women to freeze their eggs purely for 'lifestyle reasons' but added that it was legitimate, for example, for a young woman with cancer to have her eggs frozen before chemotherapy seriously damaged her potential to bear children.

The draft regulations to implement the Human Fertility and Embryology Act, as amended in relation to the storage of gametes, state that gametes (oocytes in this scenario) can only be stored for ten years. Unless during that period the person for whom the eggs are stored has, or is likely to develop, significant and premature infertility, this period cannot be extended. Egg freezing beyond this time at any of the 41 infertility clinics in the UK where this service is offered is therefore excluded for any non-medical reason.

Despite this time limit, 33 women chose to freeze their eggs for non-medical reasons in 2006, according to official figures from the HFEA. However, this figure more than doubled to 78 in 2007, even though the procedure is expensive at a cost of about £5,000.