I have yet to update the training, as I am supposed to be doing regularly, but I need to interrupt this particular training update for a rant. See, I’m particularly annoyed today by a local politician. This being a particularly
conservative* politically-anti-regard-for-thinking-ability state, my annoyance with such folk is not especially unusual. I freely admit this. But this morning, I was faced with the gem of an article wherein Rep. Ralph Hudgens has authored a bill to limit the number of embryos that can be used in single in-vitro procedure. He’d like it kept to two, except for women 40 or above, for whom he would allow three embryos.
Isn’t that sweet of him?
I’m sure you’ve already guessed where this piece of ridiculousness is coming from (especially if you read the article linked above)–Nadya Suleman, one CA mother of (now) 14.
Embedded in this piece of legislation is a ban on “destroying the embryos” that remain unimplanted in the womb. This clause, I imagine that Hudgens would claim, is necessary due to the claim that Suleman had the multiple embryos implanted because they were about to be destroyed. He remarks that the embryos are “a person” (actually, the quote is kind of funny, as he’s clearly used to the rhetoric of “in the womb” and is forced to backtrack/clarify).
I have two bones of contention here. One, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine already HAS guidelines. Yes, yes, I know guidelines aren’t rules and people don’t always obey them…but that’s okay. Really. Truly. We do not need a law. I even recognize that this is a voluntary society. That’s okay too…because grey areas really aren’t dangerous.
Look, I recognize that Suleman’s case is an uncomfortable one–mostly because of the class issues associated with it. But, it doesn’t necessitate legal intervention.
Here’s but one of the reasons why, in addition to it’s functional purposelessness; see, in Georgia, you may have heard, the Powers that Be have been trying to craft legal restrictions on reproductive rights for some time now. Granted, most of these get shot down–no matter which other piece of legislation the verbiage is buried in. The embryo remarks, though, reveal the game.
Don’t destroy embryos. How will this be worded? Will this negate the ability to selectively abort when medically necessary? And, as much as I detest slippery slope logic, I feel the need to write one of those awful, pitch-increasing sentences that I discourage in students: How many steps removed from banning abortion are we after such legislation, Roe v. Wade be damned? And, it’s not like Hudgens is attempting to pretend otherwise, either. He’s laid his cards on the table.
How will the state react? Will it champion the rights of sperm over the rights of women?
Here’s my cards: back off. Please. The state needs to stay out of my reproductive decisions. Even if I decide to birth 8 babies at one fell swoop (*shudder*). This is not a decision for the state.
On less ranty news–training is going reasonably well. 6 miles tomorrow, probably in the rain. Woohoo!
Back soon–maybe not ranting.
*Truth be told, I don’t appreciate the co-opting of “conservative” by stupidity. Conservatism, at the core principles I learned, was a respectable, thoughtful set of ideas where exchange was appreciated. I am frequently annoyed with the liberal set of ignoramuses too…failure to THINK is the most significant failing that I can see in politics and it tends to not limit itself to a single side of the aisle (an image, by the way, that I also despise).
You know, I am beginning to suspect that I am in a bad mood. I’ll have to work on a better name (and shorter) for the style of politics here. “Conservative” simply doesn’t suit.