We're diving into a heated debate sparked by the recent Senate vote that blocked a bill aiming to secure nationwide access to in vitro fertilization, or IVF. Cindy has a story, Cindy Yeah. A Cenain article by Claire Foran and Ted Barrett, published on the June thirteenth, tells us about the result of Senate vote on a text that would protect IVF in the US regardless of the whims of state legislatures. The GOP surprisingly decided to vote against these text and we'll
talk about why the irony of it all. So, Cindy, since you have actually introduced us to the story, what are your thoughts about the story when you first read it. So there's something I don't say very often, but the GOP is right here. This is definitely political theater. It's Schumer who is trying to force the GOP to vote on certain laws so he can use their rejection in the Democratic campaign. And that's the purpose of those laws
he proposed recently, like the bomb stock law he tried to advance. There were a few in the last couple of weeks, and to me, it's obvious that this is the case. He's trying to h to make the GOP vote on those issues, and then the all the senators and and uh and uh, both people in the chambers that are going to be on on on on the ballot uh in scept in November, they will be able to use Hey, look, my opponent voted against this, and this and this and
this vote for me. And I think it's a very very effective tactic. And I think it's it's a win win situation because when these uh, these votes are offered, the GP can choose to do the right thing and vote for them, or they choose to not do it, and it can be used against them later. So I think it's theater, yes, but it's it's heavy. I think, well, what about you, Jimmy. Do
you think it's just political theater. Do you agree with Cindy or do you think that it was an actual pertinent thing to bring up to to really rule
on the fate of IBS. Well, I think it's both. It's an attempt to get Republicans to have to have a conversation, a tough conversation, you know, force them into a corner and make them address something that is not necessarily a right, but something that we have the ability to offer people, and if we're going to operate on any standards of consistency, it should be offered to them based on the fact that we offer you know, medical
insurance will cover things like hair replacement or erection pills, right, Uh, things that really do help the men, the old white men that have the majority in both both chambers of the legislature. Right. And so if we're gonna be consistent, then if we can't have one, why should we have any of it. If we can't, if we can't provide people something that will bring them joy and allow them to be parents, why should and you know, counter something that their body is doing naturally. Well, then we
should take away everything, right, It's only fair. And I don't think that many lawmakers are going to vote to have viagra taken away or have Bosley uh not covered by their by their medical insurance. In fact, these things are covered by by Uh. Well, I'm gonna I'm venturing to say that there's probably coverage from the the government medical plan because they get everything. I mean, these guys serve two years to get a retirement. Anyway, I'm
digressing a little bit. What I want to say on my last point is that you know, I have known, I know three families that could not conceive. They had in virtual fertilization and then they conceived naturally following that. You know, sometimes you just need a little help, And why as a society, with the means and the desire to help, why can't we just
do that? Yeah, I agree with that part because there are a lot of families that are trying to conceive but they just don't have the wherewithal to do it naturally, right, So having an option like IVF to be available to do that would make sense. And I guess I am a bit confused by members of the GOP who would have issues concerning IVF, especially when this
is the party they're supposed to be quote unquote pro life. So why would we even consider, like what happened in Alabama which we covered where the majority GOP led Alabama s Senate the Supreme Court there tried to black ideas and it's also said the frozen embryos are persons. So it's it's very it's very weird to me how all this thing is really playing out. And you know, in speaking of since we did cover about the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling on frozen
embryos and also the Southern Baptist delegates concerns. Cindy, how do you see the ethical and moral debates around IVA influencing future legislation. Well, it's it's even more weird than what you were saying, because for the party who is trying to imply that there is this great replacement that white people need to make
more babies, being against this is just nonsensical. But yeah, I think the the idea to talk about this more is interesting because a lot of people, especially in the right, they tend to reduce abortion to abortion, when
in fact it's reproductive rights. And showing that there is a real push from the GOP to prevent any access to IVF it helps broadening the topic and showing that no, it's not just abortion, it's everything that deals with reproductive rights and that entails people things that people care about, like like what you said the morning peel, the contraception everything, and so yeah, I think it's
it's good to talk about this. It's good to for the Senate to to force GOP to UH to to vote against in some way UH And for the record, and I think it's it's interesting, Well, how do you, Jimmy, actually view the argument that the Democratic led legislation saying it's a necessary overreach and a political show vote. What might be the motivations behind such a
legislation from both parties and their perspectives. Well, I think on the Democratic side, if I were to argue that it is not in fact political theater, I would be saying, no, this is the perfect time to have this conversation because we have a very important election coming up and people need to know where you stand. Now, if you are in fact the party of family values, then why are you supportive of legislation that would take away the
construction the foundation of a family, which of course is reproduction. So that would be I think one hill that I'd be willing to die on and just kind of tell them, look, you are not the family values party because you definitely do not value the family. In fact, we have the means to give these people who want to have a family the ability to do so, but instead where is our money going? And that is the segue that I would make and and show that well, as the Family Values party,
while you reject the ability for people to form a family. You were also willing to spend more money on military aid or on well, let's say, religious legislative legislation that clearly supports religion and is in violation of the Constitution. I mean, these are the things that I would bring up and just kind
of highlight, Look, our money is being misallocated, you know. And if it's going to be a financial argument from the right that says, well, you know, we shouldn't have to spend our tax dollars on that, well, okay, let's talk about what we're actually spending our tax dollars on. And that would be my second argument there. Well, let's go back to that whole thing about you know, what is our money being said spent on and even like what other means, because like I know that Cindy,
I believe that you brought up the or Jimmy was one of you. Sorry guys, I'm an old person, but one of you actually brought up the thing about having no jim use you the coverage available for some of these different treatments, especially when you brought up like, you know, Sile's viagra, you know, monoxial for like your hair loss and things of that nature.
So you know, there is an issue that you know, requirements for like employees sponsored insurance and also public insurance plans covering you know, actual fertility treatments including IVF. So how do you think if, like say, for instance, this so we know this particular bill is blocked, there may be something that's going to come out that says that we're just going to ban this all
together or maybe other things in the future. How do you think that's actually going to impact employee base or you know, public insurance plans that cover these things. Cindy, I want to start with you, and then Jimmy,
I would like for you to follow up with that. Yeah, I think it will increase this this trend that we've seen since robtusuade was overturned to see that some states are going to be medical deserts as we call them in my country, because doctors will not want to go there and people will not want to go there either, and military base won't be uh new new ones won't be installed there, and companies will think twice before setting up buildings there.
And it's it's going to have very very strong, long term bad effects on the population at large. And as usually the poorest people will suffer the most from this. Yeah, I think it will drive costs for insurance up if we start to see this desertion that Cindy is talking about. And I also think there is a relationship here. There are probably insurance companies that don't want to cover this kind of thing, and they're lobbying for these representatives to vote
against such access. So I don't think this is merely just a conservative point of view problem. But I do think that this is a lobbying problem as well, where there are people who want to control the kind of medical care that they would be responsible for, and in that way they can control the costs because they don't want to lose money by covering more and not being able to raise their rates, which they would essentially get to do anyway. But
it's not going to make anything easier. I think it's a great point. The poorest people are going to suffer the most, and yeah, it's just it's hypocritical. I think I can't highlight enough the fact that the government and Congress's medical plan is one of the most comprehensive plans known to anybody in this country. I mean, they get everything they want, but to take that away from people who need medical coverage is incredibly hypocritical. Who do these people
work for? Right, we do not work for them. They should be doing what's best for the country. That is the social contract that they are obliged to, and they are not, and that conversation needs to be had.
That is an excellent point to bring up, especially when you're talking about who is behind this is just the political base that we're talking about, you know, the GOP versus like the dirty Libs or are we also talking about corporate interests, which, let's face it, insurance companies have a huge actual liability when it comes to what type of laws are passed when it comes to healthcare, right IVF being one of them, what type of prescriptions are going
to be covered versus not, you know, the cost point, et cetera, et cetera, And I know that the conversation in those insurance companies' corporate offices are always about keeping cost down. And often what that means is that people who happen to buy into these plans, most likely through their employers, are going to have less things that they're going to be able to have covered
because their insurance company wants to keep cost down. So even if they are a family that wants to have IVF because they're not able to conceive, you know, the natural way, then there is a very big possibility that all the cost will be coming out of their pocket, or that particular procedure may
not even be available at all. And Cindy, I want to ask you, since you know we're bringing up this whole point about what is available as far as like you know, uh, health coverage is concerned, how are the potential impacts going to be for people who may be seeking these particular procedures depending on what state that they're in. Like we have seen where let's just say, Texas has what you mentioned a medical desert because of their very stringent
laws on abortion rights. Right, So if we have this particular bill that's saying it's blocked and that the control of what's available for IVF is going to be thrown back into the states, like Row versus Wade was, how is that going to impact other families that may be in those states? Please start, Cindy, and then Jimmy, I would like for you to chime in.
Well, first, yeah, the lord that was proposed by Schumer, it also included how the finances of this we're supposed to work, and so insurance were supposed to cover some of the costs, and so it's it's a very real possibility that the lobbies of those companies they worked hard against this. That's that's a real possibility. But I think it's just I'm not sure it's going to to matter much in in in the in the great large plan, because there are so many things that are kicking down at people in in in
those red states that I'm not sure this will make a huge difference. Because we talked about religion imposed in schools, we talked about pollution, we talked about UH, voter suppression, suppression, gerymandering, UH, these medical issues, abortion, Uh. I mean to me, uh, who is not living in the US. Sometimes I just can't comprehend the depth of the problem in this country and and how much because I keep hearing in in in the
news people saying the US is the greatest country on earth. What's wrong with you? I mean, how, how how can you be blind uh to to to this point. I mean, it's it's it's unbelievable. So yeah, I'm I know that individually, some people will be devastated because they can have children. I know because I went through this, so I know it will be impactful for some people. But on on on the on the large
scheme of things, I don't think this specific problem will matter much. I mean, it doesn't impact that many people in not like abortion or or contraception or but it's still but it still could be something that can be impactful. And even though those spear are still families that are going to be seeking this procedure. Uh. And and as far as like what you said, Uh, we don't know what's wrong with us. We're still trying to figure out
out, Cindy. But what are your thoughts, Jimmy about that question that I just posed about the impact that it could possibly have for the for other states that already have like such stringent laws when it comes to reproductive rights in the first place, Well, any progress that would take place in this area,
of course, is going to be stymied. And I think it's ironic that the people who support the Republican Party generally speaking are very poor, uh, you know, and they're only shooting themselves in the foot if they plan on taking advantage of medical care that could be offered to them by voting for people who want to want to shut it down or want to not even have
the conversation. Right, So, the the argument to not voting for this, or the argument you know, buy some Republicans for not even being willing to have the conversation is by them saying, well, this isn't even really a problem. I mean, isn't this isn't something that people are looking for. Well, according to who, you know, how many people want to
conceive but can't because they just don't have the means. And the people that are voting for these people have no idea that the people they're voting for are the ones that are actually their biggest enemy when it comes to their life goals and their family goals. And so it really takes a certain amount of education. On Cindy's point, people saying well what is wrong you know, by saying what is wrong with you? To say, well, America is not
the greatest country? Well, you know that is a subjective, a subjective term, and that could be defined multiple ways. Right, there are different programs happening in other European countries that are really great for society that don't happen here. So yeah, that makes sense. But those people aren't educated on that. Those people are willfully ignorant to what's happening around them, and they
just want to be told by the talking heads what to do. And unfortunately, those talking heads are fed by the same people where their information comes from, the same people who are lobbying to have these, uh these programs put in place or or not put in place to manage costs and things like that. So I think, I think that's how I feel about that. You know, the people who are going to be affected, yes, are going to be the most poor, but oftentimes it's the members of their of this
the very own party, that are putting them in power. And also remember the intertwining of religious beliefs with legislative decisions, particularly in the matters of reproduction health, could actually be seen as a regression rather than a step forward in society.