16<\/div>SHARES<\/span><\/div>

<\/span>Facebook<\/span><\/a><\/span>Twitter<\/span><\/a>

Democrats who want to stifle oversight and regulation of Big Fertility introduced \u2064legislation this month to protect the multi-billion-dollar assisted reproductive technology<\/a> (ART) industry and punish states and health institutions that try to limit third-party child manufacturing.<\/p>\n

Democrats Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Sen. Patty Murray, and Rep. Susan \u200bWild introduced the \u201cAccess To Family Building Act\u201d<\/a> (AFBA) under the\u2062 guise of protecting in vitro fertilization (IVF) for hopeful parents. In\u200c reality, the legislation seeks \u2063to ensure the \u200dunlimited creation\u200c and destruction of healthy eggs, sperm, and \u2062\u2014 most importantly \u2014embryos in all 50 states by punishing any entity that tries to \u201cunduly restrict access\u201d to a range of reproductive\u200c technologies. <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

Duckworth\u2019s bill refuses to specifically define\u2062 ART.\u200c Instead, it\u2063 points to Section 8 of the 1992 Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act<\/a> (FCSRCA). which lists \u201call treatments or \u200dprocedures\u201d that include eggs,\u2063 sperm, and embryos; IVF; and surgical reproduction procedures like gamete and zygote intrafallopian\u2062 transfer (GIFT and \u2063ZIFT) as\u2064 eligible for protection under the Democrats\u2019 latest legislation. <\/p>\n

The FCSRCA also includes a provision\u2064 empowering the U.S. Secretary of Health \u2064and Human Services to expand the definition of ART to \u201csuch\u2062 other specific technologies\u201d as long as he publicizes his intent \u201cin such\u2063 manner as to facilitate comment from any person (including any Federal or other public agency).\u201d<\/p>\n

The sweeping and subjective categorizations in\u2064 the FCSRCA mean that while manufacturing lifelong <\/em>motherless and fatherless\u2064 children<\/a>, surrogacy, \u2064and experimental transhumanist<\/a> technologies like artificial \u2062wombs<\/a>, \u201cgene\u200b editing,\u201d<\/a> and sidelining women in reproduction<\/a> are not explicitly mentioned in Duckworth\u2019s bill, they could easily be construed to fit within the parameters of protection. <\/p>\n

If passed, Duckworth\u2019s \u200cbill would permit individuals and Big Fertility facilities to sue if any state moves\u2062 to \u200bimpose even globally accepted common sense limits<\/a> on procedures like IVF, surrogacy, \u2064and oocyte \u2063sales.\u200c It would also give President \u200dJoe Biden\u2019s Department of Justice the justification to pursue action against any state, facility, or individual that tries \u2064to limit or regulate \u200bthe use of past,\u2063 present, and future babymaking tech.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
IVF is responsible \u200bfor the\u200c millions of embryos<\/a> sitting in\u200d frozen storage across the United States and the millions more<\/a> that, despite the possibility of yielding a successful pregnancy<\/a>, are destroyed during and after the procedure. ART such \u200cas preimplantation genetic\u2064 diagnosis often yields incorrect results<\/a><\/a> and leads to premature disposal of\u2063 viable embryos<\/a>.\u200c Similarly, embryo\u2062 freezing reduces the chance\u2063 of an embryo surviving<\/a>. <\/p>\n
Statistics and science say that\u200d fundamentally revamping what it means to be a family or\u200b even human\u200b harms both women and babies<\/a> \u2064because it sidelines children\u2019s \u2063natural right \u200b <\/a>to their natural mother and father \u200bto accommodate the desires of adults.\u2064 Yet\u2064 it\u2019s an ideal all ART \u2063procedures often promote or aid.<\/p>\n
Further, business \u200bfor the \u2062\u201creproduction for all\u201d fertility industry is \u2063booming and winning over the hearts, minds, and pens of leftist legislators.<\/p>\n
What Duckworth Gets Wrong About Rights<\/h2>\n
Duckworth and Co. tried and\u200b failed to get a unanimous consent vote<\/a>\u200b on their \u200b\u201cRight to \u200bBuild Families Act\u201d in 2022. They also threw their weight behind California Rep. Adam Schiff\u2019s Equal Access\u200b to Reproductive Care Act<\/a> with the hopes \u200dof \u2064subsidizing ART\u200c and\u200d commercial surrogacy through a tax break.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
Now, more than one and a half years after the Supreme Court\u2019s Dobbs v. Jackson<\/em> decision, Democrats are reviving arguments<\/a> \u2062that \u200bstates will crack\u2062 down on Big Fertility in hopes of jamming their legislation through Congress before the \u200c2024 election. <\/p>\n
Laws designed to hold the \u2062baby \u200bmanufacturing market accountable remain\u2063 largely nonexistent, save a few\u2064 states that\u2064 ban commercial surrogacy<\/a>. Yet \u200cDuckworth, who conceived\u200d a child at \u2062 49 years old<\/a> via IVF<\/a>, complains<\/a> that Republicans\u2019 strong pro-life showing in state legislatures \u200cwill\u200b \u201cseverely limit their residents\u2019 right to access basic reproductive care\u2014but also pushing proposals that would jeopardize access to IVF and\u200d other assisted reproductive technologies<\/a> that millions of Americans\u2062 need\u2062 to start or grow their \u200dfamilies.\u201d <\/p>\n
She insists<\/a> \u201cAccess to IVF and other assisted reproductive technology is a right.\u201d Murray similarly quips<\/a> that \u201cIt\u2019s hard to\u200b comprehend GOP attacks on \u2064technologies like IVF that help women have MORE children\u2014until you remember: the bottom line for the \u2063anti-choice movement is & has \u2062always\u200b been about control.\u201d <\/p>\n
\n
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\u201cToday, anything an adult really\u200b wants is conveniently framed as a \u2018right,\u2019\u201d\u2064 Them Before Us founder\u200d Katy Faust\u200d told The Federalist. \u201cBut there is \u200dno \u2018right\u2019 to artificially and commercially manufacture children in\u200d a \u2063laboratory, nor a \u2018right\u2019 to separate them from\u2063 one or both biological parents, both of which this\u200b bill would facilitate.\u201d<\/p>\n
Outsourcing reproduction is no more a legal or human right than\u2064 killing unborn babies<\/a>. Unsurprisingly, the same \u200cwomen touting the AFBA are\u200b staunch supporters of abortion who voted<\/a> in \u200bfavor<\/a> of legislation<\/a> that \u2063would have codified\u200b ending life in the \u2062womb through all nine months of pregnancy. <\/p>\n
The baby-making and baby-taking \u2063industries<\/a> that \u2063Democrats support are\u200d both \u2062driven by \u2064adults\u2019 selfish desires,\u2064 not a child\u2019s\u2062 right to life. <\/p>\n
No matter which way you slice it, Democrats\u2019 latest ART legislation \u200dis not protecting \u200cwomen\u2019s\u2064 \u201crights.\u201d They are protecting a global business that routinely exploits<\/a> and profits\u2063 off<\/a> of the misfortunes of others.\u200c <\/p>\n
\u201cIf you want to \u200btalk about legitimate rights,\u200b a child\u2019s natural right to life and right \u2062to \u200bbe known \u200dand loved by the two people responsible for [his or her] existence tops the list,\u201d Faust\u2062 continued. \u201cBoth child rights would be threatened by\u200c this legislation. Neither you, nor I, nor the government should be financially\u2062 complicit\u200c in sacrificing \u2063the fundamental \u2062rights\u2062 of children on the \u2064altar of adult wants.\u201d<\/p>\n
As interest in reproductive tech as\u2064 a means to parenthood skyrockets, ART deserves oversight and regulation. That won\u2019t be \u2062possible if Duckworth\u2019s bill passes. <\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
rnrn <\/p>\n
\u2063 What are the implications and threats to state authority posed by\u200b the AFBA, including the potential legal\u200d action\u200d against states that seek\u2064 to\u200d impose limits on reproductive technologies<\/h2>\n
Title: Democratic Bill Seeks to Protect Big Fertility Industry at the Expense of Oversight \u200band Regulation<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
Democrats have introduced the “Access To\u200d Family Building Act” (AFBA), which aims to\u2064 safeguard the multi-billion-dollar assisted reproductive technology (ART) industry. However, critics argue that the \u2064bill is a veiled attempt to prevent oversight and punish states and health institutions \u2063that seek\u200c to limit third-party child manufacturing. The legislation, introduced by Senators Tammy Duckworth and Patty Murray\u2062 and\u2063 Representative \u200bSusan Wild, is framed as \u2064a means to protect \u2062in vitro fertilization\u2062 (IVF) for hopeful parents. \u2063In reality, it\u2064 seeks \u2064to ensure the unlimited creation and destruction\u200b of \u200dhealthy eggs, \u2063sperm, \u200dand \u200cembryos, thereby \u200cpotentially leading\u2062 to a range of reproductive\u200d technologies\u2062 being protected under \u200dthe \u2064law.<\/p>\n
Lack of Clarity \u200bin\u200c Definition<\/p>\n
One \u200bof the major criticisms \u2062of \u200bDuckworth’s bill\u200c is its failure to define ART specifically. \u2063Instead, it refers to the 1992\u2064 Fertility\u2064 Clinic Success Rate and Certification \u2063Act (FCSRCA), \u2062which includes a broad list of\u2064 treatments, procedures, and technologies related to ART. \u2063This vague \u200ccategorization opens the door for the protection of controversial practices such as\u2062 creating motherless and fatherless children, surrogacy, and experimental \u2062transhumanist technologies\u2064 like artificial wombs\u200d and gene editing.<\/p>\n
Implications and Threats \u2062to State\u2062 Authority<\/p>\n
If passed, the AFBA would grant individuals and ART facilities the ability to take legal action against any state that \u2062attempts to impose globally \u2062accepted common-sense limits on procedures like IVF, surrogacy,\u200b and oocyte sales. Additionally, it would empower the Department of Justice, under President Joe\u2063 Biden, to\u200d take action against\u2062 states, facilities, or individuals that\u2064 seek to regulate\u200b or limit the use of present and future \u2063reproductive technologies.<\/p>\n
Concerns\u200d Over\u200d Ethical and Medical Consequences<\/p>\n
The bill’s\u2064 protection of ART procedures raises \u2063concerns about\u200c the\u2062 potential harms inflicted on both women\u200b and unborn babies. By prioritizing the desires of \u200cadults over the\u2064 natural\u200b rights of children to their biological parents, Duckworth’s bill \u200ccould undermine \u2064the fundamental principles \u200bof family and human\u200d identity. Moreover,\u200c the \u2063ART industry, driven\u2064 by profit motives, often neglects \u2064to address the ethical implications and potential health risks associated with\u2064 procedures such as embryo freezing\u2063 and preimplantation genetic diagnosis.<\/p>\n
The \u2062Rise\u200c of the Fertility Industry and Legislative Support<\/p>\n
The “reproduction\u200b for\u2062 all” fertility industry is expanding rapidly and gaining support from\u2063 leftist legislators. Duckworth and her colleagues\u200d have previously attempted to pass legislation promoting ART and commercial \u2063surrogacy. With the 2024 \u200belections on \u200bthe horizon and concerns about\u2062 potential \u200ccrackdowns on the \u200cindustry, Democrats\u2062 are pushing to advance their agenda before \u2064it becomes politically challenging.<\/p>\n
The Misconception of Rights<\/p>\n
Duckworth and Senator Murray advocate for ART\u200c as a right, defending its \u200baccessibility to all. \u200dCritics \u2064argue that manufacturing children in laboratories\u200b and\u200b separating them from one or \u2062both biological parents is not\u200b a right but a commercial \u2062venture. It \u200cis noteworthy that these same proponents of the\u200d AFBA are\u2064 also staunch supporters of abortion rights, creating a contradictory stance on the sanctity of life and \u2062reproductive ethics.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
While the AFBA is presented as a\u2063 means to \u200cprotect the interests of hopeful parents\u200c seeking to start or grow their families, \u200dit raises concerns about \u200bthe lack of oversight\u2064 and \u200dregulation\u2062 in the ART industry. \u2062The bill’s broad categorizations and potential restrictions \u2063on\u2063 state authority threaten the ethical implications, medical consequences, and natural rights of \u2062children. As the fertility industry\u2064 continues \u200bto expand, it is\u200c critical to balance the legitimate rights of individuals with the \u2063need for responsible oversight and regulation to safeguard the well-being of all parties involved.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Democrats introduced the “Access To Family Building Act” to shield the lucrative assisted reproductive technology (ART) industry from oversight and penalize states and health institutions attempting to restrict third-party child production. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Sen. Patty Murray, and Rep. Susan Wild are among the lawmakers supporting this legislation<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":490,"featured_media":2157045,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2157044","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2157044","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/490"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2157044"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2157044\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2157045"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2157044"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2157044"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2157044"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}