The egg donation business has set up shop on college campuses, preying on young women in need of cash. Ironically, graduation provides a rare marketing opportunity for the American fertility industry to make one last appeal to these female students. After racking up debt to get that diploma, they now are faced with a job market on hard economic times.  How will they make it on their own?

The egg donation ads in their college newspaper not only promise quick cash, they make bold and enticing claims to 'help' a desperate couple, to 'be an angel' and 'make dreams come true'. Websites promise to make the process of egg donation simply rewarding". Michael Collins, a Daily Princetonian columnist, writes:

Ads promising more than $35,000 in compensation for egg donations show up in The Daily Princetonian every couple of days. Having seen the massive advertised payouts and the personal ads, I wondered: Did early feminists fight to keep the government out of their ovaries just so the free market could invade?

It doesn't take but a moment on Google to find out that greed has invaded the ovaries of the American college student.  These ads ran last week on college campuses across the country:

Yale University not only runs ads in their campus paper, they also operate the Yale Fertility Center which has a full page of information on becoming an egg donor.  But not one mention about the health risks to the young egg donor.  How convenient to run your fertility center with a new population of potential egg donors arriving on campus every fall!

Because of the work I do in raising awareness of the dangers of egg donation, I am privileged to have many young women share their tragic stories with me.  Where do I begin with my disdain for egg donation practices which has little to do with 'donation' but much to do with exploitation.

Woman X, a Ph.D. student, who sold her eggs to pay for school, writes this about her experience as an egg donor:

Eight days after the retrieval, I woke with a searing pain in my lower abdomen. It felt my insides were being tied tightly with a string. I tried to get out of bed and fainted from the pain. A friend drove me to the clinic. It was a Saturday so I saw the on-call doctor. She performed an ultrasound and said it was nothing more than my follicles shedding and that the pain would go away in a few days. She told me if anything serious were wrong, I would know. I wouldn't have been able to walk into the clinic. I felt like the doctor thought I was being overly dramatic, making a big deal of a little cramping. Over the next three days my abdomen swelled, I was delirious with pain and fever, and couldn't move my bowels. Another friend drove me back to the clinic, and the nurse told me I needed an enema and to eat something and I would be fine. However, whenever I ate I would vomit. On the fifth day I couldn't stop vomiting. I spent an entire night vomiting stool.

Woman X ended up back in surgery to remove a torsioned ovary.  Five years later she was diagnosed with stage II B breast cancer.  Chemo and radiation destroyed her remaining ovary.  She's left unable to have children and fears her long-term prospects as a breast cancer survivor.

Jane Doe, a desirable Asian egg donor, had 50-60 eggs taken during one egg donation cycle.  She too ended up back in surgery a few hours later when it was finally discovered that the fertility doctor had punctured an artery somewhere near here ovary.  Jane describes a common reality of 'blame the egg donor' when things go wrong.  She writes:

Afterwards, the doctor kept reiterating that it was my fault and that this has never happened to her, in the hundreds and hundreds of times she's done this.

Jane also suffered ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), which carries many symptoms ranging from fluid retention, abdominal bloating, organ failure, stroke and even death.  All signs indicate she has lost her own fertility as well.  She states:

I have been using ovulation tests to see if I am still fertile, but so far no luck.  My ovaries are abnormal in appearance with multiple cysts, whereas before they were pretty unremarkable.

Risk of certain types of cancer in women who take the powerful hormones in order to hyperstimulate the ovary to produce surplus eggs is well documented in the medical literature.  Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome can have devastating effects on a woman.  Bleeding, infection, stroke, organ failure and loss of future fertility are very real risks, which a non-patient, otherwise healthy young girl should never be exposed to. It is one thing to be a sick patient, who assumes the risks of certain medical therapies, in order to gain a benefit.  It is entirely a different matter to intentionally medicate and perform surgery on someone who has nothing to gain but a bit of money!

The fertility industry and fertility specialists have little vested interest in protecting young women egg donors.  The best the American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) can offer are "guidelines" stating women should not donate their eggs more than six times.  This guideline is an absolutely meaningless number, which is not based on any scientific, empirical data and begs the question why six and not five or seven?  By their own data, in their reporting to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, they break their own rules and ignore their own guidelines.  In the wake of the birth of the Octuplets one story broke stating that only 20% of fertility clinics play by the rules.

The IVF industry, fertility specialists and fertility clinics—along with the brokers of eggs and sperm—have strong conflicts of interest.  The IVF industry is a $3 billion dollar a year enterprise in America. A New York Times article from February 23, 2009, noted that fertility doctors at private universities are among the highest paid.  Dr. James A. Grifo, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University, was paid $2,393,646, substantially more than the president of the university.  I was on a Fox morning program with the head of NYU's egg donor program who proudly boasted that NYU only paid its students $8000.00 for donating their eggs.  Fertility doctors are money-makers for universities.

Now I have learned that Facebook is allowing egg donor ads, targeting young women, to sell their eggs.  One student at the University of California at Irvine wrote to me on Facebook last week saying she'd received an ad offering $100,000 for her eggs if she was selected. The medical profession has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the health and well-being of these young women.  Parents have the right to send their daughters off to college and not to worry that their future health and well-being will be robbed from them.  To that end, a campaign has just been launched to demand Facebook stop running egg donor ads.  Young women should be able to trust the medical establishment and not to be viewed as a resource for precious materials.

Graduation should be a celebratory time to look forward to a bright future of endless opportunities, not a time to face shattered dreams.

Women Warned of Egg Donation Ads on Facebook by Stop the Insanity Counter Campaign

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=179955025701&ref=mf

Boston Globe reports surge in egg and sperm donation spurred by economic downturn

"Charitable donations may be down because of the recession, but another type of donation is up for the very same reason: egg and sperm.

More women are trying to make money by offering their eggs to infertile couples, and men are doing the same with their sperm. Egg donor agencies in the Boston area report that their applications are up from between 25 and 100 percent over this time a year ago, and New England sperm banks have seen a similiar trend in the past six months.

'What we've seen is that the economy seems to have inspired more people to look at alternative ways to earning money,' said Sanford M. Benardo, president of Northeast Assisted Fertility Group, a company that recruits, screens, and matches women who want to become egg donors or surrogate mothers. 'We're seeing people who might not otherwise do this but for their economic condition.'

At Benardo's agency, which has offices in Boston and New York, applications from women who want to offer their eggs have doubled in the past year, with the bulk coming in the past six months. If a woman meets the agency's criteria, she earns $10,000 every time she donates. (Technically, the women are compensated for their time and inconvenience; it is illegal to sell one's eggs.)"

Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/04/07/recession_spurs_egg_and_sperm_donations/

Prop 71 drains millions of tax payer dollars funding buildings but failing to deliver cures while Californians face historic budget shortfalls

Build it and they will come, that's what the people in the Golden State of California were told when Proposition 71, the Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, passed in November of 2004. Prop. 71, a $3 billion dollar initiative, set up the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) to give away taxpayer money to fund embryonic stem cell and human cloning research promised by its promoters to cure a variety of diseases.

With California on the verge of bankruptcy, how much money has this cost Californians and what has been their return on investment? Sheehy, a member of the CIRM Independent Citizen’s Oversight Committee recently asked a telling question in a Nature article, “The $3 Billion-Dollar Question”. Sheehy asked, “We’re going to make a lot of rich people richer. Why don’t we cure somebody?” To date some $300 million has been given out in facilities grants to some 12 institutions to build new research facilities. Approximately $250 million has gone to fund embryonic stem cell and human cloning research projects. While this may be an interesting (and expensive) research endeavor, all treatments and cures to date have come from adult stem cells and the breakthrough advance with the iPSC discovery – taking your own stem cell and turning them back to an embryonic like state, which provides you with a tailor-made treatment you won’t reject.

Build it and the cures will come? No, Sheehy was right, rich people will get richer. Californians won’t get a refund but they will get buildings.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080430/full/453018a.html?s=news_rss

Lines That Divide

Stem cell research: A potential miracle cure for diseases or a form of biological colonialism? The debate still rages over this controversial science. Supporters argue that it is our moral duty to pursue scientific progress that provides healing hope for humanity. Detractors argue that the ends don't justify the means in harvesting some human life to save others. This documentary seeks to educate the public on the scientific basics of stem cell research and the moral issues surrounding it as we enter the 21st century.

First, the viewer is introduced to the basic science of stem cells and how they are gathered for medical use. Embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells are both explained along with their similarities, differences and methods of procurement. Scientific issues are examined, such as the benefits, drawbacks, and scientific and medical results of both.

The documentary also introduces the moral issues being argued in the public square – issues of human life and the medical utilization of embryos, as well as women’s health issues that arise from the procurement of eggs used in much of the research. Scientists, doctors and ethicists on both sides weigh in with their views.

One of the solutions to achieving the mass amount of stem cell lines needed for this burgeoning stem cell industry is cloning. The documentary examines cloning, what it is, what it isn’t, as well as the current scientific, moral and political issues surrounding this volatile issue in the debate.

Lastly, the film looks at the horizon of scientific and medical research in stem cells. New and alternate forms of creating or accumulating stem cells seem to be making breakthroughs monthly around the world as scientists explore the vistas of possibilities, while seeking to address the ethical issues surrounding the lines that divide.

Watch the video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4183015738251524221

Following the California Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday upholding the voter-approved ban on gay marriage, pastors and other supporters of traditional marriage pledged to oppose a campaign to place a constitutional amendment on the 2010 ballot legalizing same-sex marriage.

Jim Garlow, pastor of the Skyline Wesleyan Church in La Mesa, Calif., urged pastors nationwide to take a strong stand in the months ahead as a campaign is waged to legalize same-sex marriage throughout the United States. The opponents of traditional marriage also filed a federal lawsuit alleging the voter-approved ban on gay marriage in California violates the U.S constitutional guarantee of equal protection and due process.

“As pastors, we must unabashedly stand for life and for marriage, even if those two causes are not as hip as they once were,” said Garlow, who spearheaded last year's effort involving thousands of pastors to pass Proposition 8 in California. “Our goal is not to be chic, but biblical.”

Garlow's comments followed the California Supreme Court's 6-1 vote Tuesday to reject a constitutional challenge to Prop. 8, a measure 52 percent of voters approved in November defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The passage of Prop. 8 followed the state Supreme Court’s ruling last summer that the right to marry extended to same-sex couples. In Tuesday’s opinion, the justices held Prop. 8 was not retroactive and the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed prior to the Nov. 4 election would remain valid.

In the 136-page opinion, the justices wrote Prop. 8 was not an illegal constitutional revision – as its opponents had argued - nor unconstitutional because it eliminated an inalienable right. Rather, the justices found the initiative lawfully amended the state constitution.

“In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process,” the justices wrote. “But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it.”

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote the ruling strikes at the core of the promise of equality underlying the state Constitution, weakening its promise as a “bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority.”

Joe Solmonese, president of The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, said the ruling couldn't be more out of step in a nation where Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Maine have passed laws recognizing same-sex marriage.

“This ruling is painful, but it represents a temporary setback,” Solmonese said. “There will be a groundswell to restore marriage equality in our nation's largest state, and HRC will not give up until marriage equality is restored in California.”

But Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com Executive Committee, said post-election surveys show support for gay marriage is decreasing while support for traditional marriage is on the rise.

“We are prepared to continue in this battle with the existing coalition, which has broadened and strengthened since the Prop. 8 vote last November,” Prentice said. “We will work with ongoing diligence to inform and educate the populace of this state about the true meaning and purpose of marriage.”

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute in Sacramento, said the battle for traditional marriage is just beginning and he expects more of the bullying and intimidation tactics seen during the Prop. 8 campaign. Dacus said attorneys are willing to speak for free at denominational and regional pastor conferences or via telephone conference calls to advise pastors as to their legal rights to adhere to the definition of marriage prescribed by their faith. PJI has also offered legal assistance to those who have been blacklisted on the Internet or had property defaced by anti-Prop. 8 activists.

“Churches today are generally sitting ducks for lawsuits that could cost them their church buildings,” Dacus said.

Meanwhile, Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of America, asked his fellow rabbis, the pope and Christian denominations to call for a ban on voting for any politician who supports same-sex marriage.

“If the religious groups, consisting of tens of millions of the faithful, draw a line in the sand, even at this late stage of the devolving culture and its destruction of religious liberty, we can still save the day,” Levin said.

Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com pro-family organization, said pastors should be courageous and perseverant in defending marriage as God created it.

“Homosexual marriage is only coming through judges and politicians so we must look at who put these enemies of marriage into power in the first place,” Thomasson said. “It’s the voters. Voters elect politicians. Politicians appoint or nominate judges. Unpeel the onion even further and you get right back to the church. And voters in the church won’t be mobilized to protect what’s right in God’s sight unless the pastor jumps in and leads.”
Troy Anderson

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.