Men need fertility treatments just as much as women, writes Lee Rubin Collins, so “personhood” amendments are about their rights, too.
It used to be that people with infertility lived under a cloud of stigma and shame. People denigrated their disease, dismissing their heartbreaking inability to have children as a mere lifestyle choice.
For those of us in the infertility community, we look back on that as “the good ol’ days.”
Today, being merely misunderstood would be welcome, because what we with infertility are actually facing is an all-out war. Extremists, and let’s just call them what they are, religious extremists, have decided that the medical treatment many of us with infertility need to use—in vitro fertilization, or IVF—is immoral, and they are trying to stop it.
The scary thing is they have power and they’re using it.
This year, we have faced a war against IVF unlike anything I’ve ever seen. Almost half the states in this country introduced bills or saw ballot initiative drives to enact laws that would severely restrict if not outlaw IVF.
Why? The main effort is the latest tactic of the anti-abortion movement: pass laws that give legal rights to newly fertilized eggs. This tactic is commonly referred to as “personhood,” a gentle-sounding term for a crazily extreme position. The idea is that if microscopic embryos are declared by law to be “persons” who have the same legal rights to life as other persons, then they can’t be aborted because that would be murder.
The downstream consequences are every bit as extreme as the personhood concept is in the first place. If fertilized eggs are people, then embryonic stem cell research is murder. So, too, are many forms of birth control, since they may work after the egg has been fertilized and thus has rights (despite being located in a woman’s fallopian tube and being regularly discharged onto sanitary pads all across America).
But the most ironic consequence is that American couples who are trying to have children could be prevented from becoming pregnant and having families—because the medical treatment they need, IVF, can involve a loss of microscopic embryos, and that could not be countenanced.
Some of these personhood battles have made it into the national media. Colorado put a personhood amendment before its voters in 2008 and 2010; it was defeated both times by a 2-to-1 margin. Then they tried it in Mississippi, where personhood was polling at 80% approval in October, 2011. But after grassroots opponents and national media shined a spotlight on the consequences of embryo personhood, even conservative pro-life Mississippians felt embryo personhood went too far and in November voted it down 58 to 42%.
Legislators introducing “personhood” bills have provoked pitched battles in Georgia, North Dakota, and Arizona, among other states. These were extremely close calls—while each was ultimately defeated or abandoned, they were all poised to pass until the eleventh hour. RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association took the lead for infertility patients in those battles, and one thing they learned was that in many cases, Republican lawmakers are not dreaming up this crazy legislation themselves, but instead are spoon-fed it by conservative think tanks. The think tanks (and I use that term loosely; “religious edict shops” might be more fitting) channel their ideas for new laws through sympathetic senators and representatives, some of whom won’t entertain a bill amendment without first checking with their think-tank buddies.
But, despite having been defeated or abandoned in every state where it’s been tried, the weird thing about the personhood tactic is that it doesn’t go away. To the contrary, in December 2011, every Republican candidate for president except Mitt Romney signed a “Personhood Pledge” presented by Personhood USA, the political/religious group that is main proponent of these laws. Personhood bills or ballot initiatives appeared in almost half of the states in 2012. As I write this, a personhood bill just passed a House Committee in Oklahoma, 7-to-4, and has a good chance of passing in the House and becoming law. In Naperville, IL, protesters are challenging a city permit for an infertility clinic on the grounds they don’t want to approve a medical setting where children are “manufactured” like a commodity. At least one group has threatened a regular protest outside of the clinic (a clinic that will, I should remind you, help couples have babies) the way they do outside abortion clinics.
So the question I have is this: Will men stand up to protect access to infertility treatment? When we face these battles, the typical infertility contingent is several reproductive endocrinologists, usually all male, and a posse of infertility patients, usually all female. But keeping IVF legal is not a woman’s issue. Infertility strikes about as many men as women, and a key treatment to overcome male factor infertility, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, or ICSI, is not possible if IVF is illegal or if the threats of prison or lawsuits over “killing” embryos cause all the infertility doctors to leave the state.
So, men, please write that letter to the editor of your newspaper, send letters to your state lawmakers, and call RESOLVE or other advocacy groups fighting against these so-called “personhood” measures. You’ve seen it and we’ve seen it: when an issue is only about women, it can get written off. When men are as incensed as women over this naked attempt to impede or outlaw IVF, we reduce the chance that embryos will gain legal rights to the size it should be: microscopic.
Photo credit: Flickr / Grace Herbert
About Lee Rubin Collins
I am sorry to nitpick, but I took issue with the closing.
[quote]You’ve seen it and we’ve seen it: when an issue is only about women, it can get written off.[/quote]
That is a bold yet empty statement. Saying something “can be” ignored is empty. You don’t say whether those issues ever have been ignored or there is just the potential for it. Unless the author is trying to say that men’s issues aren’t or can’t be ignored, there is nothing to that statement.
When an issue is only about women it can get government agencies, interest groups, foundations, doctoral programs, activists, millions of dollars in grants and donations, and advertising campaigns.
When an issue is only about men it can get ignored, minimized, pushed aside, recast as a women’s issue, and have its constituents silenced.
There was just another article published on here by an author who had trouble getting treatment for his infertility, basically treated as an afterthought until he managed after years to find the right specialist. Throwing in some window dressing that “this is important for men because they won’t get access to X treatment too” ignores that the overwhelming majority of the industry is geared towards women.
Men should care about women’s issues because they care about women, not because some parties overstate how many men are directly impacted as well. It’s like you are saying that men should care about Planned Parenthood being threatened because they’ll stop getting free condoms.
Nobody “needs” IVF, because nobody actually NEEDS to procreate. Still, it should remain a legal option, and religion should stay the heck out of it.
Sloppy and divisive writing will bring you no closer to a genuine solution.
“Extremists, and let’s just call them what they are, religious extremists, have decided that the medical treatment many of us with infertility need to use—in vitro fertilization, or IVF—is immoral, and they are trying to stop it.”
No, they are not. The “religious extremists” who you so narrowly describe (and so broadly condemn) are not against IVF, they are against abortion. You acknowledge this when you say that personhood laws are “the latest tactic of the anti-abortion movement.” If personhood laws harm those who struggle with infertility, that is tragic and wrong. However, to claim that such harm is the intent of these laws is unethical and wrong.
“So the question I have is this: Will men stand up to protect access to infertility treatment?”
Shame/blame does not work any more. If you ask a question in this tone, you are going to get no help. Many men are already fighting against personhood laws, and many women are supporting those same laws. Your angry attempt to blame all men is ineffective and wrong. You can look for solutions or you can look for a bogeyman, but you cannot do both.
“When we face these battles, the typical infertility contingent is several reproductive endocrinologists, usually all male, and a posse of infertility patients, usually all female.”
Gendered, divisive and misleading language such as this is pointless.
If you are willing to listen, I can offer you insight on how “religious extremists” think. Most believe that right and wrong are absolute, not relative. Let me illustrate:
Almost everyone agrees that a baby is a person one minute after birth.
Almost everyone agrees that a baby is, therefore, a person one minute before birth.
Most people do not believe that a fertilized egg is a baby, or a person.
So where do you draw the line?
We need to move AWAY from two-tone thinking (yes/no, right/wrong, black/white, true/false). How do you hope to educate “religious extremists” that personhood happens gradually, when your own writing is two-tone, tone deaf, and uncompromising?
Let me illustrate with a dose of “extremist” thinking from your side of the isle. Here is the NOW statement on reproductive rights:
“NOW fully supports access to safe and legal abortion, to effective birth control and emergency contraception, to reproductive health services and education for all women. We oppose attempts to restrict these rights through legislation, regulation or Constitutional amendment.”
Do you recognize the same kind of two-tone thinking (yes/no, right/wrong, black/white, true/false) that you criticize in your adversary? These characters are advocating for the right to slaughter a healthy baby moments before birth.
You want your opponents to drop the siege mentality? Maybe you should lead by example.
You’ve seen it and we’ve seen it: when an issue is only about women, it can get written off.
Appallingly dishonest.
wow
When an issue is only about women it will define political debate, not get written off.
Either way I don’t see any good arguement as to why fertility treatment should be illegal, its about as murderous as the morning after pill.
Here’s another thought though: Infertility is genetic. I don’t think IVF should be banned but I wonder if, as a species, we’re digging ourselves deeper into a hole of genetic unviability.
Don’t worry about it.
Not all infertility is genetic, and even when it is, many fertility treatments (including IVF in may cases) don’t involve passing on the infertile person’s genes. Both donor sperm and donor eggs are among fertility treatments that people use – sometimes both at the same time – so both are methods of helping infertile people conceive that wouldn’t “taint” the gene pool.
More importantly, though, you could just as easily point out that genetic defects are more common as people age (which is true for both men and women) and wonder whether “old people” (anyone over 35) are digging a hole of genetic unviability for the species. From a cold academic perspective, that sounds bad for the gene pool, but for people who want to have kids despite having fertility issues or being over 35, it smacks of eugenics to suggest they should leave all the procreatin’ to young, “normal” folk. I’m not saying you were making such an argument, but I could easily imagine someone’s concern for our species gene pool pursuing that line of reasoning if they had an axe to grind against fertility treatments.
Okay — I’ll bite.
What I expected in comments:
“OMG, are there really people trying to enact laws that would make it harder or impossible for couples to do IVF in this country? That is shocking. Thank you for alerting me. How can we men help turn back this misguided movement?”
Plainly, that was not the response I got. I’m in a mood that’s both circumspect and sporting, so let’s look at some of the comments.
The line that received the most comment was an aside: “You’ve seen it and we’ve seen it: when an issue is only about women, it can get written off.” It certainly wasn’t central to my argument, but I admit, as a recruiting tool to men it was pretty backhanded. I could have written an appeal that was much more welcoming, and should have. It was a generality that it is often inaccurate even if often accurate, too.
A question arose whether it is fair to label the people who are pushing vehemently for embryonic legal personhood rights as “religious extremists.” It’s probably a pejorative label, but I do believe this movement emanates from a religious fringe, and not mainstream religion. Personhood is not synonymous with “pro-life” and that’s an important distinction to make (I did not make it as well as I should have). In fact, many mainstream pro-life groups disagree with and do not support the personhood movement. Episcopal and Methodist Churches, the National Right to Life Committee, and Americans United For Life are among those that have withheld support for the personhood movement.
Another reason the proponents can be called extreme was pointed out by Anthony Z: the fundamental premise of the personhood movement is the exact one that you said “most people” do not believe: that a fertilized egg is a baby or a person. Indeed, many personhood bills read like this: “The term “person” shall include an egg from the moment of fertilization.” I think you are right that most people do not believe that — but if a personhood law passes, all of us will have to live our reproductive lives according to that belief, held, as you say, by a small minority of people and, it seems plain, as a matter of religious tenet.
The question of whether all personhood advocates “intend” to outlaw IVF is an interesting one. I think you’re probably right that it wasn’t the main intention; the main intention was to stop abortion. But if fertilized eggs are full persons with legal and Constitutional rights, then it seems likely, for example, that you can’t freeze them. Freezing embryos, however, is critical to the practice of IVF at the standard of care in this country. As another example, if fertilized eggs are persons, then the loss of embryos has the legal and moral equivalent of the death of a full adult human; if negligence can be claimed, then a lawsuit or criminal charges can be brought. Will doctors and embryologists want to practice medicine with that threat over their heads? We don’t think so. So, yes, it is possible that harm to IVF is collateral damage in the personhood war. But in the end, if my medical treatment is impeded or taken away, it doesn’t really matter if it was intentional or collateral.
It was one of the last comments in Anthony Z’s note that I am still pondering. You posted this quotation from the National Organization for Women:
“NOW fully supports access to safe and legal abortion, to effective birth control and emergency contraception, to reproductive health services and education for all women. We oppose attempts to restrict these rights through legislation, regulation or Constitutional amendment.”
You wrote:
“Do you recognize the same kind of two-tone thinking (yes/no, right/wrong, black/white, true/false) that you criticize in your adversary?”
I really don’t. If I understand correctly, you see the statement from NOW as equal to the efforts to ban abortion and IVF via embryonic personhood. Perhaps you ought to explain this more fully, because I really do not perceive them to be the same kind of thinking. The difference I see is that the NOW statement is about preserving access to certain reproductive treatments, including abortion. It isn’t mandating that anyone has to have an abortion or in any way live their lives in a manner inconsistent with their own beliefs.
But under personhood laws, those who believe IVF is immoral don’t have access, but neither do those who believe it is moral.
I’m posting this note late, and those who commented may have gone away – but if you’re out there, let me know what you think.
How quickly we forget sometimes.
Do those of us in the United States truly not remember the stem cell debates, the IVF debates, the Plan B debates, and the RU-486 debates of the past two decades? If banning the destruction of a 64-cell blastocyst (one that hasn’t even implanted, mind you) is “extreme” then we can count those members of the US House of Representative who supported the “Dickey Amendment” as extremists.
Make no mistake, the disagreement among most in the pro-life coalition is not whether these personhood bills are sound policy; the disagreement is whether they are sound strategy towards achieving their end goal which is the elimination of abortion, and their definition of abortion includes contraception that prevents implantation. This is a disagreement between the incrementalists and the fundamentalists, not an extreme view held only by a fringe element of the pro-life movement.
Nor can we ignore that this is a view that is religious in nature (despite the fact that if a fertilized egg is a person then God is the most prolific abortioner the world has ever known). There is no reason to believe that it is morally wrong to kill an eight-celled zygote (which again, hasn’t even undergone implantation). It is not a person in any meaningful sense of the word. Yet those promulgating such legislation would have us believe that eight cells–whether in a petri dish or still tumbling through the fallopian tubes–deserves the full legal protection of the law.
It’s ironic that those who would have us be free from “sharia law” see absolutely no problem in crafting their own religiously-based legislation. But intellectual consistency has never been their strong suit.