Pay-for-Eggs Legislation Now Before California Gov. Jerry Brown
♫ Sunday, August 4th, 2013officially on Gov. Jerry Brown's desk, awaiting his signature or
veto.
Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, was sent to the governor at 4:45 p.m. PDT
yesterday. On July 1, it easily won legislative approval and
has been held in legislative processing since then. The governor has
12 days to act on the measure or it becomes law without his
signature.
ban on payment to women for their eggs for scientific purposes.
Currently women who provide their eggs for fertility purposes can be
compensated. Fees run as high as $50,000 in some cases, depending on
the characteristics of the woman providing the eggs, but generally
are in the $10,000 range or less. The bill does not affect the ban on
the use of funds from the California stem cell agency to compensate
egg providers.
billion-a-year fertility industry, which is backing it on motherhood
and sexual equity grounds. Supporters say women should receive
payment for their eggs just as men are paid for their sperm. They
also argue that more eggs are needed for research into fertility
problems. In the stem cell field, scientists have also said it is
nearly impossible to find women who will provide eggs unless they are
paid.
stimulating production of eggs can be risky or dangerous. They say
that the longterm effects of the process have not been studied well.
They also argue that it will lead to exploitation of low income and
minority women to produce eggs that then can become a profitable
commodity for the largely unregulated fertility industry. (For more
informationon on the bill, see here, here and here.)
Bee, opponents cited the late philosopher Ivan Illich, who was much admired by Jerry Brown, who considered him a friend. Illich was quoted as warning "against the processes of medical
industries which 'create new needs and control their satisfaction and
turn human beings and their creativity into objects.'"
committed to signing the bill.
yesterday in an article on the Forbes magazine website by Jon Entine.
He wrote,
“Should activist groups, working
through legislators, exercise their control over women’s
reproduction? Do we really 'own' our own bodies? Or does that tenet
only hold when nanny groups say it’s okay?”
The egg legislation may have implications for
regulation of stem cell research by the state Department of Public
Health(again not involving the California stem cell agency). Last
month the California Stem Cell Report asked Hank Greely, a Stanford
law professor and chair of the state department's Human Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee, about the measure. He replied,
“Well, if (when?) AB 926 is signed, I
think our committee should meet to consider what recommendations we
would make to the (the department) as a result of the bill. Those
recommendations could lead, if the committee and the department
agree, to a revision of the state guidelines. As a matter of
law, a statute, particularly a subsequent statute, trumps a guideline
where they are in conflict, but basically I expect we'll see what the
committee thinks and what the department decides. I don't wish
to guess at the results of either process.”
publicly during the debate on the legislation deals with whether human eggs provided with compensation would be subject to state sales tax at any stage in the process. A check of the tax code, however, makes it
clear that eggs are tax free. The code states that “any human body
parts held in a bank for medical purposes, shall be exempt from
taxation for any purpose." The definition of “bank”
includes research facilities, and "medical purposes" includes research.
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source: