I proudly rise in support of her amendment. Let us talk a little bit about this. When you do in vitro fertilization, let us face it, you are not going to have any embryos unless the people are willing to consent to give up the egg and the sperm. There is no way a doctor can capture those from someone and steal them from them and they walk down the street. So you have two willing people involved here. Second, you have a dish of embryos and you cannot implant all of them in the uterus because the threat of multiple birth would crowd out each other. So then what you have is some embryos that are going to be discarded or might be used for research, if and only if the consenting adults agree. I cannot imagine what is controversial about that. I think that is the most pro-life position of all, pro-quality of life. I think it is very, very important we stand firm and not yield to the flat Earth caucus on this issue.
Patricia Schroeder: “I proudly rise in support of her amendment. Let us talk a little bit about this. When you do in vitro fertilization, let…”
Editor's note · Context
Supporting an amendment related to in vitro fertilization and embryo use.
Share
More from Patricia Schroeder
There was in the past century a man named Mr. Comstock, and Mr. Comstock was one of these people who decided only he knew what was virtuous and right, and somehow he managed to convince all sorts of people that this was correct. He even in…
I find that fairly astonishing, that they tell us we can go outside and talk about it, but we cannot talk about it on the floor.
I was really pleased to hear the Speaker say he did not have an objection to it, and was wondering, since it appears to have been cleared and so noncontroversial, could we get it out and could we get it passed?
The reason I feel the EEOC is very different from other regulatory agencies is we have piled a bigger and bigger workload on them. If we are going to pile a bigger workload on a regulatory agency but treat it the same as SEC when it has a…





