Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Families from Fertility Fraud Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes a new federal criminal offense for knowingly misrepresenting the nature or source of DNA used in assisted reproductive technology or assisted insemination. The term assisted reproductive technology includes any treatment or procedure that involves the handling of human oocytes or embryos, such as in vitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, and zygote intrafallopian transfer. The term assisted insemination includes any procedure that involves the handling of sperm including intrauterine insemination. A violation is subject to a fine, a prison term of up to 10 years, or both. Additionally, the bill makes the violation a predicate offense (i.e., an underlying offense) for prosecutions under the federal racketeering statute.
Sponsors: Rep. Bice, Stephanie I. [R-OK-5]
Target Audience
Population: People using, or affected by, assisted reproductive technology and insemination
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The bill targets operators and practitioners involved in assisted reproductive technology and assisted insemination who may be deceitfully using incorrect DNA in procedures.
- Families who have used or are considering using assisted reproductive technology or insemination are directly impacted, as they seek transparency and honesty in genetic origins.
- There are ethical concerns related to the use and handling of genetic material in assisted reproductive services.
- The bill seeks to protect individuals from potential deception and fraud in reproductive services, offering them legal recourse in cases of malpractice.
- This legislation could influence practices and procedures in fertility clinics and among healthcare professionals involved in reproductive technologies.
Reasoning
- This policy directly impacts individuals using assisted reproductive technologies or considering them because it establishes legal consequences for practitioners who knowingly engage in fertility fraud.
- With the annual number of births aided by assisted reproductive technology in the U.S., multiple families could be impacted by historical or current cases of DNA misrepresentation.
- Not everyone using these technologies will experience direct effects, but the potential for increased trust in the industry may lead to a general increase in wellbeing.
- Given the niche nature of the policy, it primarily affects those directly involved in or having had experiences with fertility treatments.
- Financial constraints of the policy limit the number of investigations and prosecutions that might occur during the initial years, hence affecting individuals based on exposure.
Simulated Interviews
Marketing Specialist (New York City, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am pleased to see that the government is taking steps to ensure integrity in fertility treatments. It gives me more confidence as my husband and I plan our next steps.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hearing about issues like fertility fraud makes me cautious. This new law could make fertility services feel safer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Reproductive Endocrinologist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could increase trust in clinics like mine but also expose clinics to litigation risks. It's a double-edged sword for practitioners.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Public School Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing everything about our donor was true was crucial for us. This law gives us peace of mind about our decision.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Environmental Consultant (Seattle, WA)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There’s so much to consider when starting a family, and trusting our process won’t be manipulated makes a big difference.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Police Officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While it doesn’t directly affect me now, knowing past wrongs could see justice is comforting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Fertility Clinic Nurse (Denver, CO)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act is overdue. It helps hold accountable those who mislead vulnerable families and maintains the integrity of our practice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Graduate Student (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As I look into fertility treatments, knowing there are laws in place to protect genetic information is important to me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Lawyer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The potential for harsher penalties could mean more work and better outcomes for clients affected by fertility fraud.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired Farmer (Rural Kansas)
Age: 60 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support moves that increase accountability and honesty, although I'm not directly affected by this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $5200000 (Low: $3200000, High: $7200000)
Year 5: $5400000 (Low: $3400000, High: $7400000)
Year 10: $6000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $8000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Key Considerations
- The legislative costs focus on enforcement and legal proceedings, primarily involving agencies responsible for handling federal criminal offenses.
- The potential long-term impacts on medical ethics and improvements in patient trust within fertility clinics.
- The legislative focus of making this a federal crime aligns with deterring malpractice and protecting individuals using reproductive technologies.
- Any substantial savings or costs associated with the reduced incidence of fraud in assisted reproductive technology are hard to quantify at this stage.