Each year I have the honor of picking the top winners and losers in the world of bioethics. Some years are easier than others. Sometimes it is easy to find losers but more difficult to pick winners. But this year the deck was pretty even. Maybe one year there will be a year when there are no losers. But I’m not holding my breath!
 

Winners:

Olivia Pratten: Born via anonymous sperm donation, Olivia took on and successfully changed Canadian Law, banning anonymous egg and sperm donation. Of course, this has been immediately challenged. We will continue watching this case.

Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine: This institute is making great progress in adult stem cell research with advances such as growing organs in petri dishes, using the patient’s own stem cells, engineering heart valves, and advances in treating diabetes by engineering pancreatic beta cells from amniotic fluid.

The Vatican: Putting their money where their mouth is, the Vatican has partnered with NeoStem, “To foster the highest levels of scientific research on Adult Stem Cells and to explore the cultural, ethical, and human implications of their use.” Unlike Geron Corporation (a loser, below), the best way forward, always, is ethical scientific progress.

Eggsploitation: Tooting our horn, Eggsploitation won Best Documentary at the 2011 California Independent Film Festival, has been sold into over 20 countries, and is currently being translated into Italian. It continues to educate young women who are being targeted with large sums of money to engage is risky behavior.
 

Losers:

Geron: In February of 2009, Geron Corporation enthusiastically announced the FDA’s approval of their Phase 1 clinical trial, injecting human embryonic stem cells into patients with new spinal cord injuries. Less than 12 months later, Geron announced it was abandoning the field due to “capital scarcity and uncertain economic conditions.” Truth is, human embryonic stem cell research is ethically problematic and insiders say treatments, if ever, are a long way off.

Euthanasia Coaster: A hypothetical (for now) ride that boasts: “The three-minute ride involves a long, slow, climb — nearly a third of a mile long — that lifts one up to a height of more than 1,600 feet, followed by a massive fall and seven strategically sized and placed loops. The final descent and series of loops take all of one minute. But the gravitational force — 10 Gs — from the spinning loops at 223 miles per hour in that single minute is lethal.” Turning a roller coaster into literally the final ride of your life is a real loser.

Planet Hospital: Advancing the phenomenon of outsourcing pregnancy as just another job, Planet Hospital goes so far as to offer the “India Bundle,” an ‘affordable’ package deal that gives would-be parents an egg donor, four surrogates for four embryo transfers, room and board for the surrogate during the pregnancy, and transportation services for the parents to go to India and pick up the baby.

Theresa Erickson: An internationally renowned surrogacy lawyer in Southern California, Erickson pled guilty to being a co-conspirator in a three-ring baby-selling scheme. Erickson’s ring included Maryland based attorney, Hilary Neiman. Neiman was sentenced to five months in federal prison and seven months to home confinement. Erickson is scheduled to be sentenced in late January.

Fresh off a very successful year of predicting the future in 2011, I now find myself forced to once again risk my laurels, peer into my crystal ball, and tell you what will happen in the world of bioethics in 2012. What I foresee hurts my eyes and my heart, but a prophet must be honest. Please remember, the following predictions are what I see happening. They do not reflect what I want to happen.

Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare

President Obama has not exactly been “The Bioethics President.” For the most part, his administration has seemed to downplay bioethical controversies and agendas.

The one notable exception—to use a much understated word—was passage in 2010 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or Obamacare, as it is generally known. The ACA is truly a transformative law. If it goes into full effect, it will alter in predictable and unforeseen ways the federal government’s relationship to the people, for better or for worse—depending on one’s point of view—centralizing the control over health care coverage and funding into the federal bureaucracy, and perhaps setting the stage for a future “single payer” type system throughout the country.

But Obamacare is not a done deal. It remains unpopular in most opinion polls, with some showing a majority for repeal. It is also mired in legal wrangling, with a case to be heard this spring in the Supreme Court of the United States to determine whether the law is, in whole or in part, unconstitutional.

So what will happen to Obamacare this year?

Prediction 1: Obamacare will not be repealed legislatively in 2012. Well, duh. The current government won’t repeal it, and the next one won’t come into being until 2013. Okay, okay. I’ll get onto something you don’t know.

Prediction 2: Obamacare’s Individual Mandate Will Be Declared Constitutional. This is the most important issue facing bioethics for 2012, so without turning this essay into a law review article, please let me explain my reasoning. The ACA legally requires all Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty fine (a tax, according to the administration), known for purposes of discussion as the “individual mandate.” The argument over the individual mandate essentially boils down to apples versus oranges, law versus policy.

• Those who think the mandate is unconstitutional argue that the government does not have the constitutional authority to force Americans to buy anything, and indeed that such a legal compulsion is unprecedented in American history.
   
• Stripped of its legal mumbo jumbo, defenders of Obamacare argue that the mandate is necessary policy, because without the mandate people will wait until they are sick before buying insurance, which would collapse the system financially.
   
• In my view, both assertions are correct.

That should mean the Supremes will rule against the mandate, right? No. Let me explain.

The Supreme Court has vastly expanded the power of the federal government since the 1930s. In so doing, the justices have often based their decisions as much on policy as on law—and then fashioned legal justifications to back up their decisions (which, in turn, become springboards for further federal expansion). Some call this phenomenon “judicial legislation,” but we won’t get into that here. Moreover, the justices generally come from what is sometimes called the “ruling class,”—people who graduated Yale, Harvard, Princeton, etc.—people who have faith in “experts” and technocratic solutions to societal problems. The rulings of the Court on controversial social and political issues often reflect the views of this subset of Americans more than those of the general population (not that the opinions of either should be relevant). While polls generally show a majority of Americans opposing Obamacare, the ruling class tends to support it.

With the above in mind, I believe the majority of the Supreme Court will rule that Obamacare’s purposes are laudable, that universal coverage is equitable and necessary for the country’s future, and that since the mandate is a necessary element of making the new law work, it is constitutional. That may sound like bootstrapping, but there it is.

My big clue was a November 2011 decision validating the individual mandate written by conservative Reagan-appointed Appeals Court Judge Lawrence Silverman. To wit: “The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems.” That’s policy, baby! Moreover, it encompasses a philosophy that places technocratic problem-solving above upholding limited government. With the coming decision, a new era will have fully dawned for the United States of America—even if Obamacare is later legislatively repealed.

Prediction 3: The Supreme Court Ruling Will Turn Obamacare Into One of the Election’s Biggest Issues: With the Supreme Court legally validating Obamacare, the law will become a huge political issue in the 2012 election. But even though majorities of people oppose the law currently, this will not redound to President Obama’s substantial detriment. To the contrary, people like a winner. Besides, many people today believe that what is “legal” is also “right.” Thus, the Supreme Court’s ruling will improve the law’s popularity, or at the very least, make people resigned to an Obamacare future.

Prediction 4: Obamacare Opponents Will Not Have Sufficient Electoral Success to Repeal the Law Legislatively in 2013: The only way Obamacare will be fully repealed in 2013 is for all of the following to transpire: the president is not reelected; the law’s opponents win a supermajority in the Senate (filibusters, don’t you know); and, opponents win the House. At most, only two out of three of those will happen. I predict only one.
 

Other Issues

I thought it was important to explain the bases of my predictions about Obamacare at some length, so I will be very brief in the rest of my prognosticating:

Assisted Suicide: This will be a big year in the assisted suicide battle internationally.

1. No state legislature will legalize assisted suicide.
    
2. The United Kingdom’s Parliament will not legalize assisted suicide.
    
3. Swiss “suicide tourism” will continue to make the news by growing increasingly radical in scope, perhaps including the suicide of someone who is mentally ill.
    
4. Massachusetts Voters Will Vote Yes to Legalize Assisted Suicide. (Some of my anti-assisted suicide colleagues will be angry at me for this prediction, stating we must always keep a positive face. I argue that the MA initiative can be beaten, but it will require opponents to pull out every stop. Let this prediction alarm us into a maximum effort.)
    
5. The Supreme Court of British Columbia will rule that there is a constitutional right to assisted suicide, forcing Canada’s Supreme Court to take up the case. The ultimate decision will not come until 2013.
    

Human Cloning/Stem Cell Research: Stem cell research has lost its punch as a public issue, and I expect 2012 to be very much like 2011. In other words, no new dramatic developments, with the possible exception of a human cloning breakthrough.
 

Miscellaneous: A few of these, like my IVF prediction, are easy. But I decided to go out on a few limbs:

1. IVF will continue to cause controversy as the boundaries and propriety of using the technique are applied in ever more radical ways. No regulations placing ethical parameters on assisted reproduction will be passed in the USA.
    
2. At least one state will permit organ donors to receive some form of compensation, disguised as expense reimbursement.
    
3. Scientists will grow primordial gametes from human stem cells.
    

Well, I’m exhausted and disheartened. But be of good cheer. In answer to Scrooge’s memorable question from A Christmas Carol, these are not the things that must be, but what might be. Facts change and the future remains fluid until it happens. If you don’t like the picture I have painted, work to prove me wrong. Please.

 
Wesley J. Smith, J.D., Special Consultant to the CBC, is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism and a consultant to the Patients Rights Council.

The premiere showing of Anonymous Father’s Day is coming up . . . January 29, 2012, at the Soho Gallery for Digital Art in New York City to be exact! You’ve helped us get this far, now we need a little more help from our friends to pull this off. Beginning January 29th at 7pm and running through February 1st, Anonymous Father’s Day will show FIVE times. And we all need to be on hand.

Which costs money . . . five days in the Big Apple is not cheap. But we aren’t rock stars (yet) so don’t need rock star treatment, just your help to fly in several of the people in the film, feed them a little, and get them a bed to lay their head on.

We are an award winning team, writing, directing, and producing this new high-impact global film and could sure use some Kickstarter funds to get us closer to our New York City Premiere. We’re giving you, and all our friends and supporters, just 3 weeks to raise $3,100. We’ve done it before and we can do it again, with a little love from our friends.

So please consider a gift to help us with the next phase of Anonymous Father’s Day. You can give through Kickstarter or through PayPal.

What Others are Saying

“Anonymous Father’s Day gives a voice to those adult children of Third Party Reproduction (TPR) who have a fundamental human right to information about their genetic history for their health and medical care, to their identity and family history, and to siblings they may have all over the world. The U.S. obsession with capitalist profit-generation has resulted in a major human rights violation of the children of TPR. It is a damning indictment that the U.S. is the only country in the world besides Somalia to have failed to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Jennifer Lahl’s film sheds much needed light on an ever-growing population ignored and too often silenced by society.”
— Kathleen Sloan, Feminist, human rights advocate, and author, National Organization for Women (NOW)

“So absorbing I watched it twice . . . a profound documentary”
— Jill Stanek, nurse turned speaker, columnist, and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect innocent human life

“Anonymous Father’s Day should be required viewing for anyone considering donating or selling their sperm, as well as for anyone contemplating using this method of conceiving a child. The film beautifully reveals the stories of three donor-conceived adults whose needs have been entirely ignored by an industry that only considers the desires, money and frequent dishonesty of adults desperate to have a baby.”
— Kevin D., a sperm donor who has been denied a relationship with his biological child

We are very close to meeting our year end matching grant of $50,000.
Can you help put us over the finish line? If you believe in our cause, please consider giving NOW.

Your gift to Center for Bioethics and Culture is tax deductible.

It seems like momentum is growing and opportunities to engage are accelerating. This is all a bit nerve racking, but wonderful to know we are having an impact.

This year we have moved from the frying pan to the fire. Hardly a week now goes by without some media outlet wanting a comment or an interview. The national exposure on the implications of bioethics is driving much of this. Controversy creates news coverage. Thankfully I feel we are well prepared to speak with a clear voice to the issues. Some of the exposure has been emotionally draining, but I am encouraged that our voice is being heard.

With just the few days in this week left in 2011, I sincerely ask for your generous yearend financial support. I cannot do this any longer without the partnership of equally dedicated friends like you. Your giving is critically needed and very much appreciated!

Any gift you give by December 31 will qualify for the matching challenge. If you give $100, the match will make this $200. If you can give $1,000, the match will make this $2,000. Your gift triggers the matching amount. To access the entire $50,000 matching challenge, friends like you are needed in the next four days. Can I count on you?

You can give easily online right now. Simply visit the CBC website: CBC-Network.org. For any gift of $50 or more, I will gladly send you a copy of the newly released film, Anonymous Father’s Day. This is a must see film that is already attracting some very surprising and encouraging response—especially from men who have been sperm donors.

May 2012 be a wonderful year for you. We are on the verge of something significant, and grateful we have a front row seat! This will likely be the most challenging year ever for CBC, and I am eager to see what is in store in the New Year.

I eagerly await your year end response. Thank you for your financial partnership.

Jennifer Lahl

Your gift to Center for Bioethics and Culture is tax deductible.

We pray that you and your family will have a blessed weekend celebrating Christmas.

Merry Christmas from the Board of Directors and Staff of the Center for Bioethics and Culture

Your gift to Center for Bioethics and Culture is tax deductible.

Is there such a thing as a “duty to die?” Some notable voices in bioethics say, yes. They believe that as a matter of distributive justice, when people reach a certain advanced age, severe disability, or very poor health, they owe it to society, their families—and even themselves—to allow life to (or make it) end.

Thus, in 1997, University of Tennessee bioethics professor, John Hardwig, wrote in the prestigious Hastings Center Report, “A duty to die is more likely when continuing to live will impose significant burdens—emotional burdens, extensive caregiving, destruction of life plans, and yes, financial hardship—on your family and loved ones. This is the fundamental insight underlying a duty to die.”

One of the United Kingdom’s leading bioethicists, Baroness Warnock, has also supported the duty to die. As reported by the UK’s Independent newspaper in 2008:

She is quite happy with the notion of the ‘duty to die’ . . . A couple of months ago, in an interview with the Church of Scotland’s magazine Life and Work, she said: “If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives—your family’s lives—and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.”

To date, no country has actually enacted such a legal requirement on its citizens. But that should not make us sanguine. To the contrary, a through-the-back-door duty to die has already been launched through policies that permit doctors to refuse so-called “futile” treatments.

Futile Care Theory, aka “medical futility,” has been on the bioethics movement’s agenda for more than ten years. Here’s how it works: If a patient or their family want life-sustaining treatment—generally in the ICU setting—but doctors and/or bioethicists think it is “inappropriate” based on quality of life or cost/benefit judgments, the treatment may be unilaterally withheld or withdrawn. Let’s be clear: “Futile care” treatments aren’t refused because they don’t work. To the contrary, they are denied because they keep the patient alive.

The recent Baby Joseph case in Canada provides a vivid example. Joseph was dying of a genetic disease. Joseph’s doctors, supported by hospital bioethicists and administrators, told his parents that they were going to refuse all further life support. But when the parents asked for a tracheotomy to enable them to take their son home to die, the doctors said no again. They thought it was best for Joseph to die sooner, not later.

The case went to court, but before it was adjudicated, Priests for Life found a U.S. hospital where the tracheotomy could be performed. The surgery was successful, and Joseph’s parents took him home. He lived—and was loved—for an additional seven months, time that he and his parents would have been denied had the Canadian doctors been allowed to impose their will.

Futile Care principles have now escaped the ICU with the growing trend to deny life-extending cancer treatment to terminally ill patients, often outside the hospital setting. For example, a committee of doctors in Lancet Oncology recommended rationing cancer therapies that won’t save—but could extend—terminal cancer patients’ lives. From the Daily Mail story:

Patients with terminal cancer should not be given life-extending drugs, doctors said yesterday. The treatments give false hope and are too costly for the public purse, they warned. The group of 37 cancer experts, including British specialist Karol Sikora, claimed a ‘culture of excess’ had led doctors to ‘overtreat, overdiagnose and overpromise.’

Such uncompassionate denials have already been imposed on unwilling patients in the USA. For example, Medicaid is legally rationed in Oregon. In 2008, two cancer patients were refused coverage for prescribed chemotherapy that would extend their lives for months. Showing the current trend, the state instead offered to pay for their assisted suicides. (One of the patients received the treatment free from the pharmaceutical company. The decision about the other was reversed after a public outcry.)

Coupling health care rationing and assisted suicide—a clear duty to die agenda—has been openly advocated in Vermont by a state official to the applause of an Addison County Independent editorial:

Money must also be saved in services delivered to people with chronic diseases and those who frequently use emergency rooms, he said; two areas in which the community at large must help play an important role. Passing a law that allows physicians to help end a patient’s life under very controlled circumstances, known as “death with dignity,” is one such measure that could help (an effort was tried this past session but postponed until next year). Another is approving some type of rationing measures, as Oregon has done, that help control health care costs.

The duty to die tide is flowing, and it won’t stop with the terminally ill. When I was researching my book Culture of Death, I interviewed an advocate of medical futility and noted that refusing ICU treatment wouldn’t save a lot of money. I asked what futilitarians (as I call them) would try to cut next? He responded, “marginally beneficial care.” His example? Refusing mammograms to women above the age of 80.

Make no mistake, when medically efficacious treatment is denigrated as “futile” or “marginally beneficial,” it isn’t really the care that is being so described, it is the patients.

 
CBC special consultant Wesley J. Smith is a Senior Fellow in Human Exceptionalism at the Discovery Institute and a lawyer for the Patients Rights Council.

Despite all our society’s talk of civility these days, it seems the public square is only becoming more of a lion’s den. And people of a certain stripe are being excluded or marginalized purely on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Case in point: Recently, I was invited to speak at the annual professional conference of the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society on the topic of my film Eggsploitation, a documentary which explores the issue of egg “donation.” When the invitation was first given, I told the conference organizer that I knew the message of my film and most of my writings on Assisted Reproductive Technology in general, and egg donation in particular, would not be very welcome. In fact, I made it clear that I had no intention of coming into the lion’s den. I was assured by the conference organizer that I would be treated civilly, and that they really wanted to hear from me and engage all sides of the issue, hearing from all points of view. So I agreed to go and present.

Which brings me back to Canada. My presentation was based on the facts as we know them, and the real life stories of egg donors I have met in my decade of work in this field who have been adversely affected by selling their eggs. Egg donation carries health risks to the young women who choose to donate or sell their eggs; sometimes, in rare instances, those risks include death. Fertility drugs have risks, as does the surgical procedure a young woman undergoes in order to have her eggs harvested. The longer-term risks (e.g., risks to a donor’s own future fertility, and the risk of developing cancer) have not been studied. Egg donors are not tracked after the procedure to see what becomes of them down the road.

Informed consent is therefore meaningless. How can you inform someone of risks when you’ve never studied what you are asking them to do? And even more importantly, the woman who is often motivated by financial incentives of tens of thousands of dollars will ignore any risks that she does know about, because she is in need. So, in fact, “eggsploitation” happens to young women who are enticed by high-paying ads to “help make dreams come true.” As the film attests by telling these women’s stories, even when things go wrong, their symptoms are ignored, and they are advised to “stay the course” lest they have a failed cycle, which means they don’t get paid.

My interlocutor in Canada was a fertility specialist from the Washington, D.C., area. He described himself as a Darwinist, secularist, and Jewish. His presentation consisted of a personal attack on my Christian faith and those who I work with who share that faith. His slides showed such things as where I received my master’s degree in bioethics, who our directors are, and their Christian credentials. He focused on my writings on our website and on other Christian sites, as well as the winners of our annual Paul Ramsey Award. In the end, he told the audience that he wanted them to know who I really was and that my credentials — or, as he saw it, my bias — discounted me from speaking. He spent three quarters of his time on ad hominem attack. The Canadian Press called it a “verbal mauling” and stated that a fellow panelist and I were “eviscerated.” One woman in the audience told a journalist, “I said I was uncomfortable. I should have said I was ashamed as well.” She added: “I was just shocked. I’d be shocked to see any speaker, whether I agree or disagree, treated like that.”

Interestingly, my opponent’s closing remarks supported many of my points, notwithstanding our different worldviews. He stated that we needed to follow up with and track egg donors and establish a national registry. Why would he suggest this? He didn’t say, but I assume it is because he knows the facts: This is risky business with unknown long-term complications. He added that we should have standard informed consent. Why? So, that women are being told the truth, I suppose — that this is a procedure that is not without risk. Then my opponent added that payment should be standardized. Why? Maybe because he agrees with me that money is a coercive incentive to engage in risky behavior?

It’s too bad he didn’t open with his closing remarks, because that would have emphasized just how much we actually had in common. During my own presentation, I was asked what would be an ethical way forward. I stated that for a start, informed consent must remove all financial compensation from the decision and advise women that we have never studied the long-term effects of egg donation on young women, and we currently have no plans to do so. Therefore, we have no idea what medical and psychological risks we are asking you to assume. Would you still like to donate your eggs?

It was hard to endure such a personal attack, in front of an audience of about 200, many of whom cheered him on. And from someone who essentially agreed with me! But I know that we have a right to have our voices heard in the public square and not be muzzled. It is much more refreshing to have a truly open public square, where we can civilly air our differences, find areas of common ground, and move the ball forward. And our religious beliefs should not exclude us from public discourse, especially on matters of life and death. Let’s be sure that our worldview informs our argument so that we can continue to put forth the best ideas and in the most charitable way. Despite that bruising experience, I resolve not to be silenced and to be a voice for such a time as this.

 
This article originally appeared at BreakPoint

The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network invites you to nominate the 2012 Paul Ramsey Award winner.

Save the Date Paul Ramsey Award Dinner March 23, 2012 6:30 pm Lakeside Olympic Club Skyline Boulevard San Francisco, CA Reserve a Seat or Table

The Paul Ramsey Award honors those who have made an outstanding contribution to the bioethics discussion and are actively engaged in society; facing the challenges of the 21st century, profoundly defending the dignity of humankind, and enthusiastically embracing ethical biotechnology for the human good. The Ramsey Award is given to those who have demonstrated exemplary achievement in the field of bioethics.

Do you have someone in mind? Make your nominations today. Tell us why you think your nominee should receive this award and our Paul Ramsey Nomination Committee will consider your entry.

Click Here to Make a Nomination

Nominations for the Ramsey Award close on October 31, 2011. The winner will be announced in late 2011, and the award will be presented at the Paul Ramsey Award Dinner on Friday, March 23, 2012.

Previous Ramsey Award Recipients

• 2004: Edmund D. Pellegrino
   
• 2005: Germain Grisez
   
• 2006: John M. Finnis
   
• 2007: William E. May
   
• 2008: Albert S. Moraczewski
   
• 2009: Gilbert Meilaender
  “All of us, Ramsey would have said, whatever our particular vocations, are part of this community of discourse. All of us are called to think, as carefully and as thoroughly as we can, about these urgent human problems.”
  — from Dr. Meilaender’s remarks at the 2009 Ramsey Award Dinner
   
• 2010: Leon Kass
  “The Ramsey Award has a very special meaning for me, for Paul Ramsey was my mentor and friend, and my first teacher in bioethics. More than anyone else, he was responsible for major changes in my moral outlook and my life’s work.”
  — from Dr. Kass’ remarks to the 2010 Ramsey Award Dinner
   
• 2011: Luke Gormally
   

Who was Paul Ramsey?

Paul Ramsey is regarded by many as one of the most important ethicists of the twentieth century. He was a distinguished writer on bioethics a generation ago, and served as Harrington Spear Pain Professor of Religion, Princeton University. Ramsey shines as an almost lone beacon in the general darkness of academic bioethics, since his commitment to the sanctity and dignity of human life was paramount.

By Jennifer Lahl, CBC President

It had already been a bad week for the moral credibility of the infertility industry. The Mumbai Mirror reported that cops were making arrests in a thriving racket involving local gangs, civic officials, and medical professionals all teaming up to traffic infants from India to countries where commercial surrogacy is illegal. It sounds like a plot to yet another movie, such as Google Baby and Made in India, showing the dirty underbelly of the booming billion dollar illegal baby making industry.

If you think this is too far from home to be interesting, and that selling babies is a rare event isolated to developing countries, please read Alan Zarembo’s piece in last week’s Los Angeles Times. Theresa Erickson, internationally renowned surrogacy lawyer in Southern California, has just pleaded guilty to being a co-conspirator in a three-ring baby-selling scheme. Erickson’s ring included Maryland based attorney, Hilary Neiman, and Carla Chambers, who served as a surrogate in the operation on multiple occasions and recruited other surrogates.

Erickson has relentlessly attacked my documentary, Eggsploitation, as over-sensationalized hype from a conservative organization whose larger agenda was to shut down the industry. Eggsploitation tells the stories of women who have been victimized by the fertility industry. Last year it won best documentary at the California Independent Film Festival. Perhaps because of the film’s impact and success, Erickson and her colleagues wrote several negative commentaries and devoted air time on her radio program to criticizing the documentary as inflammatory and misleading.

Erickson continually comforts her listeners by assuring them that she is an advocate for the “the absolute best practices,” and that the claims in Eggsploitation are specious and insulting. In short, I have been distorting the truth about how unethical her practices are, and I have overstated the health and economic challenges inherent in the infertility industry.

ABC News Coverage

The truth has now come out and as it turns out, it is Erickson who has been doing the lying. The public relations damage to the industry has been done, and who better to do it than the industry darling. Needless to say, the fertility industry is reeling.

Erickson and her co-conspirator’s scheme was to prime the pump and increase their babies-for-sale inventory by sending women, willing to act as surrogates, to Ukraine to be implanted with embryos created by anonymously donated eggs and sperm. If the pregnancies were sustained to the second trimester they would find intended parents willing to pay $150,000 for a baby. They would lie to these buyers, telling them that they had a surrogate pregnancy where the original intended parents had backed out. Then, Erickson would file the required legal documents with the courts.

The Associated Press reported that Erickson also admitted to filing false applications for the surrogates to California’s state insurance program to subsidize the medical costs of the deliveries of the babies. To be lawful, these contracts must be drawn up and filed before the surrogate is impregnated and the intended parents already secured.

Babies are being bought and sold. Women are being exploited. Non-traditional families are being made with no consideration for the children created by these technologies. And in this specific case, we see that greed trumps all.

Ms. Erickson and her co-conspirators violated a legal distinction without a difference. Do we get the parties all lined up and the contracts signed in advance or do we wait until after the baby is already in progress? Erickson broke the law by having the surrogate impregnated before the contracts were signed. But commercial surrogacy, whether done legally or Erickson’s way, is still selling babies. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it ethical.

Just as Peter denied Christ, as soon as this story broke, leaders in the industry began to back peddle from their relationship with Erickson. Pam Madsen at Fertility Advocate immediately posted this statement:

I have known Theresa Erickson as a distant colleague for years. She joined the board of directors of The American Fertility Association after I left the organization that I founded as the first Executive Director. So I only really knew her from moments at special events, Facebook, a one-time appearance on her radio show last year, or through reputation.

Madsen and others went on to explain that there had been whispers that Erickson was being investigated, and that she was involved in things she shouldn’t be. Other colleagues from the Family Formation Law Offices wrote:

We were sad to see today that any attorney would engage in baby-selling. Theresa Erickson, a California assisted reproduction attorney who was never a member of AAARTA or ACFFL, has plead guilty to multiple counts of baby-selling . . .

A favorite of mine came from the Spin Doctor, who stated that it is important to note that this case is not about surrogacy, but rather the sale of babies (and wombs) under the guise of surrogacy. You see, the Spin Doctor ascribes to the letter of the law and supports baby selling as long as the contracts are drawn up before and not after.

The Associated Press story reports that California leads the nation in trying to regulate the service and prevent such abuses. California, the birthplace of Octumom’s Octuplets, is known as the reproductive tourist capital of the world. If this is leading the nation in regulation to prevent abuses, God help us.

All signs point to the fact that this recent development is only the tip of the iceberg. Parents with children from these surrogacy arrangements are worried about the legitimacy of their parental rights. Others are wondering if there are more surrogates out there without medical care or intended parents waiting for babies when they are born.

The latest word on Erickson’s guilty plea is that the co-conspirators have entered a plea agreement and Erickson will lose her law license. She has reported that she will “go back into the surrogacy field through her “agency” and/or as a consultant.” Time will tell if justice will be served.

 
This article originally appeared at ToTheSource