Why We Should Ignore the 'Octomom'
The most up-to-date version of this piece can be found in the Duke Law Scholarship
forthcoming in, Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy
Thanks to the “Octomom” – a single, low-income, California mother of six, who recently gave birth to octuplets conceived through IVF -- the American public this year turned its attention to assisted reproductive technology. In this essay, I take issue with one set of proposals to arise from the controversy: embryo-transfer limits, variations on which have been proposed in Georgia, Missouri, and, most recently, by Naomi Cahn and Jennifer Collins. Examining national and international multiple-birth rates, as well as similar limits in other countries, I argue that government mandated embryo-transfer limits would produce fewer benefits and higher costs in the United States than proponents assume. First, the Octomom is a sad and disturbing, but aberrant, case. Second, questions of embryo transfer and multiple birth inevitably intersect with other politically contentious issues, including the moral and legal status of embryos and abortion. These political minefields render it highly unlikely that the United States will implement comprehensive embryo-transfer regulation effectively designed to reduce multiple births anytime soon.
Date of Authorship for this Version
ART, IVF, fertility, octomom, nadya suleman, industry self-regulation, embryos
Krawiec, Kimberly D., "Why We Should Ignore the 'Octomom'" (2009). Duke Law School Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 179.