Related articles:

Bill to criminalize sale of ova, but not sperm, is anti-women

General
A1 Communications
Cable Techs Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Health Care
Sierra Tucson
Eating Disorders Program Coordinator

Your cynical editorial, "Bill to criminalize sale of ova, but not sperm, is anti-women," manifested a surprising ignorance of what my bill — the product of months of meetings with leading biotechnology experts in the state — is hoping to accomplish.

Contrary to your editorial on Wednesday, this bill is all about "the potential profit from selling eggs."

The crux of the bill is this: Do we really think it is ethical for human egg brokers to offer women huge financial inducements to undergo surgery and put their health at risk?

Are we willing to support putting human eggs up for sale to the highest bidder, with no medical benefit for the egg donor — only potential harm?

What's next? Selling human kidneys to the highest bidder?

It is telling that no medical association in the state opposes this bill. In fact, not one group or individual signed up in opposition during the bill's hearing in the House Judiciary Committee.

Instead of delving into the complexities of this serious issue, your editorial accused me of sexism for attempting to achieve what scores of women's rights advocates from around the country have hoped to accomplish: the regulation of human egg procurement.

The Star is evidently unaware that two women have died in the past six months after undergoing hormonal treatments prior to surgical extraction of their eggs (what you blithely call "a medical procedure").

Nor is the Star aware of the risks associated with egg extraction and hyperovulation, risks which have nothing whatsoever to do with sperm donation or crude gender politics: ovarian rupture, strokes and a host of serious ailments.

Since when has sperm donation caused such medical complications, not to mention death?

There is no compelling ethical or public health reason to ban the sale of sperm, and to compare an invasive surgical procedure like egg extraction with donating sperm is the height of absurdity.

The risks involved in egg donation may indeed be worth taking when a woman is donating eggs to create new life via in-vitro fertilization. A woman and her doctor must make a risk vs. benefit calculation. 

But this bill does nothing to restrict egg donation — only sales and purchases. In fact, under my bill, women who choose to donate their eggs to in-vitro fertilization clinics would receive reimbursement for reasonable costs, such as medical and travel expenses.

Has the Star failed to notice the ads run by egg brokers in student newspapers across Arizona, tempting young college women, many of whom have student loans to pay, with offers of thousands of dollars to sell their eggs and thereby put their health at risk?

This bill is about telling egg brokers who care more about profits than about women's health that Arizona will not tolerate their tactics.

It is a sad state of affairs when a so-called progressive newspaper plays gender politics instead of focusing on the health of Arizona's women.