• Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    He litterally said the bill doesn’t mention IVF. It is just one authors opinion that the bill could possibly be corrupted to ban IVF. The reality is is that one can never predict all the side effects a bill might have when it is intentionally misinterpreted.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      He litterally said the bill doesn’t mention IVF.

      He? Where?

      Never mind, went back and read through the whole article, instead of just depending on the summary.

      My question still stands though.

      What you’re mentioning was that there’s no carve out, also known as an exclusion of, for IVF. Not that it doesn’t mention IVF.

      From the article…

      And as Rubashkin points out, there is no carveout in the bill for in vitro fertilization. Oops!