Ryan Sponsored Abortion Bill That Would Make Romne

[sweettooth]

www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/08/paul-ryan-abortion-ivf-romney-kids-criminals

The VP candidate pushed an anti-abortion bill that would outlaw IVF—which Mitt Romney's children used.

—By Stephanie Mencimer | Tue Aug. 14, 2012 3:01 AM PDT

Now that Mitt Romney has chosen Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate, Ryan's long history as a culture warrior is getting a fresh look. Women's groups have already honed in on his extreme anti-abortion record, which consistently has earned him a 100 percent voting approval rating from the National Right to Life Committee.

What isn't so well known about Ryan's record, though, is that one piece of legislation he supported is so extreme that it would have turned Romney's children into criminals.

The Sanctity of Human Life Act, which Ryan co-sponsored, would have enshrined the notion that life begins at fertilization in federal law, thus criminalizing in vitro fertilization—the process of creating an embryo outside of a woman's womb. In IVF, doctors typically create multiple embryos and then only implant the healthiest ones in the woman. Some of them stick and become babies, and some don't. The embryos that don't make it to the womb are either frozen for later use or destroyed. The Sanctity of Human Life Act, if passed, would make all those embryos "people" in the legal sense, so if they aren't used or don't become babies after being implanted, they would essentially become murder victims under the law.

In the more than 30 years since the world's first "test-tube baby," IVF has become a fairly common procedure and a lifeline to many infertile couples, Democrat and Republican, despite some of the thorny moral issues involved in the process. Some 60,000 babies every year are born thanks to IVF. Infertility is thought to affect some 10 to 15 percent of all couples in the US—especially those upper-class professionals who delay childbearing until their late 30s and early 40s. Infertility, in fact, is such a bipartisan problem that no fewer than three of Mitt Romney's own children have relied on the procedure to produce some of his 18 grandchildren.

In May, Romney's son Tagg became father of twin boys thanks to help from IVF and a surrogate mother. Tagg's son Jonathan was also produced this way. Two of Tagg's brothers reportedly have struggled with infertility issues and resorted to IVF as well. It's hard to imagine that Romney will score any points with voters by tapping a running mate whose anti-abortion views are so extreme that Romney's own kids can't live with them.

Ryan's position on IVF might give President Obama an opening for attack: While Romney's running mate has advocated criminalizing a procedure that has brought untold joy to about 3 million families over the past three decades, Democrats might be able to claim credit for making advanced infertility treatments available to the vast majority of Americans who can't afford them. Currently, most health insurance plans don't cover infertility treatment, so IVF and other advanced baby-making technology is mostly available to rich people—like the Romney boys.

One estimate puts the cost of Tagg Romney's new twins at more than $60,000, a price tag that puts IVF (and surrogate moms) totally out of reach for the average infertile couple. But Obamacare could change all that. The Department of Health and Human Services is currently drafting what's known as the Essential Health Benefits Plan, a collection of conditions and other medical care that many insurance companies will be required to cover. There's currently a push to have infertility treatments included as an essential benefit. Down the road, it's possible that Obamacare will not only help thousands of people take care of their children, but also help them conceive them in the first place. As campaign issues go, this one couldn't present a starker contrast. The supposedly pro-life GOP candidates want to turn infertile couples into criminals for trying to have a baby. The Democrats want to help them pay for it.

[heyjude]

Well we all know "co sponsored an anti choice bill" really means "secretly doesn't care about what happens to your ute." Get with it.

[ttt]

I think tying Ryan's bill to what Romney's kids (not Romney himself) did is a stretch.

Banning IVF and the whole personhood crap is bad enough on its own.

[debatethis]

Aug 14, 2012 15:23:34 GMT -5 ttt said:

I think tying Ryan's bill to what Romney's kids (not Romney himself) did is a stretch.

Banning IVF and the whole personhood crap is bad enough on its own.

Agreed, but I really wonder how Tagg Romney feels about all of this. His father's running mate wants to criminalize the way Tagg chose to grow his family and essentially says that Tagg's children should never have been born. It has to be awkward enough with the whole country knowing you did IVF w/ a gestational carrier, but also having to plaster on a fake smile in support of your dad's VP? Ugh.

[marie427]

This is just so unfathomable to me. I understand that pro-life people think of embryos in a very different way than I do but this is just extreme.

[Deleted]

Aug 14, 2012 15:38:40 GMT -5 marie427 said:

This is just so unfathomable to me. I understand that pro-life people think of embryos in a very different way than I do but this is just extreme.

I agree. While I disagree with those who are against abortion, I get their position.
But banning IVF and birth control I cannot respect at all.

[ESF]

Aug 14, 2012 15:23:34 GMT -5 ttt said:

I think tying Ryan's bill to what Romney's kids (not Romney himself) did is a stretch.

Banning IVF and the whole personhood crap is bad enough on its own.

I agree.

[aw]

Aug 14, 2012 15:43:00 GMT -5 @lauriergirl28 said:

Aug 14, 2012 15:38:40 GMT -5 marie427 said:

This is just so unfathomable to me. I understand that pro-life people think of embryos in a very different way than I do but this is just extreme.

I agree. While I disagree with those who are against abortion, I get their position.
But banning IVF and birth control I cannot respect at all.

I understand why people would think it's extreme, but at least it's consistent. I mean, if you believe life begins at conception, then all of the embryos created during IVF would be babies. Discarding unused babies would be like murder to those people and no different than abortion.

[NitaX]

So, aw, then what's the answer from the pro-life perspective? Do you just ban IVF altogether? And how do you explain that to families who wish to conceive that way?

[aw]

Aug 14, 2012 18:07:05 GMT -5 NitaX said:

So, aw, then what's the answer from the pro-life perspective? Do you just ban IVF altogether? And how do you explain that to families who wish to conceive that way?

I don't know what the answer is? All embryos that are created must be given a chance for life? I don't know. If the position is that an embryo created inside the womb should not be allowed to be "murdered", I guess the consistent answer would be that an embryo created outside of the womb can't be murdered either.

Not saying I agree with this, but I bet that people would argue this so long as IVF is legal.

[basilosaurus]

Aug 14, 2012 15:24:33 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Aug 14, 2012 15:22:04 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Well we all know "co sponsored an anti choice bill" really means "secretly doesn't care about what happens to your ute." Get with it.

Also, we're not allowed to talk about his social platforms because he's only the VP candidate and the VP candidate doesn't have much influence over the actual presidential agenda. Rather, we should talk about his fiscal platforms because the VP candidate will have a lot of influence over the presidential agenda.

Also, don't forget he just co-sponsored.

[aw]

This reminds me of a few stories I have read about pro-lifers that have chosen to "adopt" embryos that were going to be discarded. Sounds like a creative solution to me. There are lots of families that want to adopt or undergo IVF, but cannot afford it. Perhaps the people who created the embryos but no longer want them could donate them to families that want to conceive this way? It wouldn't completely solve the problem, but it's something.

[NitaX]

Aw, I think that could work (adopting embryos). It just bothers me when legislators craft legislation without thinking through all the possible ramifications. It's not like it's that hard to sit around and ponder these things. We do it all the time at my office. So, if you do this the way the bill is worded, then how does that impact ...

[aw]

Aug 14, 2012 18:17:55 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Aug 14, 2012 18:12:27 GMT -5 aw said:

This reminds me of a few stories I have read about pro-lifers that have chosen to "adopt" embryos that were going to be discarded. Sounds like a creative solution to me. There are lots of families that want to adopt or undergo IVF, but cannot afford it. Perhaps the people who created the embryos but no longer want them could donate them to families that want to conceive this way? It wouldn't completely solve the problem, but it's something.

But aren't you adopting embryos that don't have a very good chance of making it? Isn't that why they weren't implanted into the original IVF couple to begin with? I mean, it seems like a good solution in theory, but I'm not sure it makes a lot of practical sense.

Aw, your sig made me wonder... what would happen if your kids ended up liberal? Would you care? I mean, I don't think you'd be the type to disown them or anything, but it would just be a bit unexpected. Any idea how you'd react? Or is this more of a "cross that bridge if/when you get there" type of thing?

I thought that the majority of embryos were discarded because the couple already successfully got pregnant and didn't need the rest of them, not because they weren't going to make it. I could be wrong though. I know very little about this.

As for the siggy, I was trying (and failing, I guess) to be funny. If my kids ended up liberal, I probably wouldn't care at all. If they decided not to accept Christ, I would be deeply troubled. Just being honest. But my mother-in-law, who is one of the most devout Christian women I know and who I go to first when seeking spiritual advice on mothering stuff, is a FLAMING liberal (and also a lesbian - not that it matters, just thought it was relevant to the conversation). I love her and value her advice, so her sexual orientation and politics have no bearing on our relationship. I guess this is my way of saying I will love my children no matter what lifestyle they choose. I just hope it includes Christ.

[Deleted]

Because you all LOVE my stories....

I know someone who did IVF. She keeps on having babies (almost enough to have her own reality show) because she doesn't want to destroy any of the embryos from when she harvested her eggs. So every 2 years or so she does another round of IVF to use up some more eggs.

[aw]

Aug 14, 2012 18:19:26 GMT -5 NitaX said:

Aw, I think that could work (adopting embryos). It just bothers me when legislators craft legislation without thinking through all the possible ramifications. It's not like it's that hard to sit around and ponder these things. We do it all the time at my office. So, if you do this the way the bill is worded, then how does that impact ...

I totally agree.

[aw]

Aug 14, 2012 18:24:06 GMT -5 @septimus said:

Because you all LOVE my stories....

I know someone who did IVF. She keeps on having babies (almost enough to have her own reality show) because she doesn't want to destroy any of the embryos from when she harvested her eggs. So every 2 years or so she does another round of IVF to use up some more eggs.

Does she have many sets of multiples? How many kids total does she have now?

[basilosaurus]

I know someone who always said she'd adopt the embryos. When it came time to do so, though, she decided she needed biological children. 4 so far. I think it's mostly lip service from people who say adoption is the solution.

[Deleted]

Aug 14, 2012 18:26:40 GMT -5 aw said:

Aug 14, 2012 18:24:06 GMT -5 @septimus said:

Because you all LOVE my stories....

I know someone who did IVF. She keeps on having babies (almost enough to have her own reality show) because she doesn't want to destroy any of the embryos from when she harvested her eggs. So every 2 years or so she does another round of IVF to use up some more eggs.

Does she have many sets of multiples? How many kids total does she have now?

She does have a couple sets of twins.

[aw]

Aug 14, 2012 18:28:38 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Aug 14, 2012 18:24:06 GMT -5 @septimus said:

Because you all LOVE my stories....

I know someone who did IVF. She keeps on having babies (almost enough to have her own reality show) because she doesn't want to destroy any of the embryos from when she harvested her eggs. So every 2 years or so she does another round of IVF to use up some more eggs.

Does she know that you can give up your embryos for adoption? That's what DH and I had planned to do if we went ahead with IVF.

I wonder if some people have a hard time adopting out the embryos. There are some people that don't want to give up their babies for adoption because they can't stand to think of a child they created being raised by someone else. I bet it's the same for some people with the embryos.

[Deleted]

Aug 14, 2012 18:30:21 GMT -5 aw said:

Aug 14, 2012 18:28:38 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Does she know that you can give up your embryos for adoption? That's what DH and I had planned to do if we went ahead with IVF.

I wonder if some people have a hard time adopting out the embryos. There are some people that don't want to give up their babies for adoption because they can't stand to think of a child they created being raised by someone else. I bet it's the same for some people with the embryos.

Also if you are willing to go through the pain and agony of IVF I suspect you probably have a strong desire for a child that is biologically yours

[Nonny]

"Just adopt out the embryos" doesn't seem to be any more reasonable of a suggestion than just telling a women who is experiencing an unplanned pregnancy to just adopt out the baby. It's going to be a tough decision fraught with emotion in both cases isn't it?

I mean, if we're supposed to accept the notion that a week old embryo is exactly the same a newborn infant in terms of legality (which I don't buy), then both decisions should be equally emotionally traumatic.

[teflep]

Aug 14, 2012 19:10:23 GMT -5 Nonny said:

"Just adopt out the embryos" doesn't seem to be any more reasonable of a suggestion than just telling a women who is experiencing an unplanned pregnancy to just adopt out the baby. It's going to be a tough decision fraught with emotion in both cases isn't it?

I mean, if we're supposed to accept the notion that a week old embryo is exactly the same a newborn infant in terms of legality (which I don't buy), then both decisions should be equally emotionally traumatic.

It's called placing a child. Not give up, not adopt out. Sorry, pet peeve.

[Nonny]

OK ::shrugs:: I'm not really versed in the intricacies of adoption and it's specific verbiage.

My points till stands though. People have a strong emotional attachment to their offspring. If you have gone through the hell of IVF in order to try to have a baby the likelihood that you would willing to place those embryos with another family without a second thought is pretty low. I don't plan to have kids, but if I did and I needed IVF there is absolutely no way I would allow my embryos to be adopted by someone else. And if embryo adoption was somehow compulsory in order to get IVF I wouldn't do it.

[teflep]

Aug 14, 2012 19:20:38 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Aug 14, 2012 19:12:34 GMT -5 teflep said:

It's called placing a child. Not give up, not adopt out. Sorry, pet peeve.

I have two adopted brothers. "Gave up for adoption" is the phrase we use in our house when we refer to their bio mother.

And that is fine, but to most adoptive families, these phrases cause emotional responses.

[caden]

It's a leap to assume that personhood bill would have outlawed IVF entirely. It might cause a problem with destroying viable embryos, but all of these could easily be exempted in the bill. Like how they exempted abortions from fetal homicide laws. Has Ryan actually said he wants IVF outlawed?

[caden]

Also my clinic did not allow embryo adoptions. I don't know how common it is at IVF clinics.

[caden]

Aug 14, 2012 19:26:00 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Aug 14, 2012 19:24:43 GMT -5 caden said:

Also my clinic did not allow embryo adoptions. I don't know how common it is at IVF clinics.

Northwestern allows it, so maybe it depends on the size of the health care system.

Could be. The clinic I was at had several offices, but I don't think it was associated too much with a bigger network like a university. They did do some research studies, but few and far between.

[aw]

Aug 14, 2012 19:19:27 GMT -5 Nonny said:

OK ::shrugs:: I'm not really versed in the intricacies of adoption and it's specific verbiage.

My points till stands though. People have a strong emotional attachment to their offspring. If you have gone through the hell of IVF in order to try to have a baby the likelihood that you would willing to place those embryos with another family without a second thought is pretty low. I don't plan to have kids, but if I did and I needed IVF there is absolutely no way I would allow my embryos to be adopted by someone else. And if embryo adoption was somehow compulsory in order to get IVF I wouldn't do it.

But that doesn't make sense. I have a strong attachment to my embryos, so strong that I can't place them with another family. So instead I am going to throw those embryos in the trash.

I realize this is a complicated emotional issue, but that type of thinking makes zero sense to me. If you have a strong attachment to the embryos, wouldn't giving them a chance to live be better than allowing them to end up in a landfill?

[Nonny]

I don't see how that doesn't make sense, but I'm also OK with abortion in any circumstances, and to me destroying an embryo (via "throwing it in the trash" or donating it to science for stem cell research) isn't any different.

If I had found myself with an unplanned pregnancy at any point in college I would have had an abortion and wouldn't have considered adoption. In part because I didn't want to subject myself to the rigors of pregnancy and in part because I wouldn't have been OK with the idea of someone else raising my kid.