transmitted to males, who rarely manifestnsymptoms (and who also maynbecome infertile). Chlamydia-inducednPID carries a sterility rate of 25 percentnwith a single episode; with a secondnsubsequent episode, the rate of sterilitynincreases to 50 percent. There are 20nmillion known cases of incurable herpes;nantibiotic-resistant strains of gonorrhea,nsyphilis, and the human papillomanvirus (often followed by cervicalncancer) all are on the increase in thenUnited States, and all have wreakednhavoc with the bodies and fertility ofnwomen and men. The “cures,” whichnwere to liberate women, have gone thenway of many other social innovations:nthey have resulted in new maladies.nForty-five percent of American couplesnnow have difficulty conceiving or arenunable to have children.nEnter the brave new (but booming)nbusiness of reproductive technology.nInfertility has given the practitioners ofnthe new technology an unprecedentednwindow of opportunity. This is a worldnwhere, in the cloak of compassion,ntechnologies to enable women to conceivenand/or bear biological children ofntheir own have turned childbearingninto profitable commercial businesses.nIt is widely acknowledged that fromnthe conception of the new reproductiventechnologies, the experiments exploitednunsuspecting women, theirnbodies, tissues, harvested ovum, andntiny unborn offspring. Experiments bynDr. John Rock in the 1940’s usednpoor, mostly Catholic women patientsnat the Free Hospital for Women innMassachusetts. Deliberately schedulingnwomen for surgery at strategicntimes. Rock harvested eggs and fertilizednembryos from surgically removednuteri, ovaries, and fallopian tubes ofnunknowingly pregnant women. Britishnanimal geneticist Robert G. Edwards,ncredited with the first test-tube humannfertilization, also extracted ova fromnwomen, inseminated them artificially,nand studied and mounted the embryosnconceived without the knowledge ofnthe donor-mothers.nFrom this ignominious beginning,nthe commercial business of reproductionnhas refined its technology andnexpanded into a huge, largely unregulatednindustry. Nearly 250 fertility clinicsnhave opened in the last decade,nwhile Americans spend one billionndollars every year in attempts to be­n48/CHRONICLESncome pregnant. The number of officenvisits for fertility services are estimatednat over two million visits annually.nWomen and men subject themselvesnto an extensive and costly variety ofndiagnostic tests and therapeutic treatments.nIt is not unusual for a couple tonspend up to $35,000’for a course ofntherapies.nArtificial insemination using malengametes is one well-known techniquenthat is widely used by the reproductivenindustry to treat some infertility problems,nsuch as low sperm counts. Spermnbanks are consequently becomingnmore popular, particularly among singlenwomen. The New York Timesnrecentiy reported that thousands ofnlesbians are using this technique tonbecome pregnant. Not only is. there annabsence of screening regulations fornpotential mothers, but the CalifornianSupreme Court and a New Jerseyncourt have both ruled that a child sonconceived does not have a “naturalnfather,” that the anonymous donor isnnot the child’s “father.”nInducement of superovulationnthrough use of fertility drugs, antibioticntherapy, and surgery to correct blockednfallopian tubes are other commonntreatments. Yet, in spite of the technologicalnadvances, 20 percent are diagnosednas infertile for unknown reasons.nSome physicians contend that the fertilityntreatments are a waste of effortnand money, since many of the couplesnwould have eventually become pregnantnanyway. For example, the NewnEngland Journal of Medicine reportednfindings from a follow-up study of overn1,100 infertile couples: 44 percent ofnthe couples treated for infertility conceived,nbut 35 percent eventually conceivednwithout treatment. This has lednto a debate about the one-year criterionnfor diagnosing infertility — a criterionnthat helped create a heightened demandnfor fertility services.nIn vitro fertilization is the reproductiventechnology that has received thenmost publicity since the first test-tubebabynwas born in 1978. The fertilizationnin petri dishes of male and femalengametes opened up new possibilitiesnfor women who could not conceive butnwere’ able to bear children. The gametesndonated could be from the birthnmother and father, a selected donornmother or father, anonymous donor, ornvarious combinations of each. Thennnsuccess rate (meaning a live birth) fornin vitro fertilization is a mere 5.6npercent woddwide and only 10 percentnin the United States, and the costs arenexorbitantly high. Yet, there are aboutn15,000 in vitro attempts every year bynAmerican couples who are willing tondo anything to have a baby.nIt is this technology that closelynresembles manufacturing of commodities—nquality control included. Usually,nseveral eggs are harvested and fertilized.nThe newly developing embryosnmay be selectively destroyed beforenimplantation, and they are closelynwatched for “abnormalities.” Multiplenembryo implants have been found tonincrease the success rate of impregnation,nbut they also may result in multiplenpregnancies. New techniques ofn”embryo reduction” of multiple pregnanciesnwere therefore developed tondestroy selectively the “extra” embryosn— so as to increase the probability of anfavorable outcome for the remainingnbaby. There are also new techniques ofn”embryo transfer” — washed outn(through lavage) of the body of onenwoman and implanted into the body ofnanother. Researchers have also developedna means of quick-freezing livenembryos for later implantation. Thesenegregious practices have occurred innpart because there is no state regulationnor accountability over them. Astoundingly,nthe reproductive technologistsnare a self-regulating, closednsociety.nLegislation has focused less on regulatingnthese practices than on beefingnthem up. A bill proposed by RepresentativenPat Schroeder would have requiredninsurance infertility coverage forntwo million federal employees. A failednlegislative proposal in Virginia wouldnhave required all insurance companiesnto include infertility treatments in theirncoverage, as does Massachusetts. Atnthe same time, Virginia successfullynamended its informed consent law tonrequire infertility clinics to simply informnpatients of the averages of successfulntreatments. Finally, a law wasnproposed in Virginia to dispose ofnembryos should a couple divorce ornchange their mind — by making thenembryos the property of the facility,nrather than committed to the custodynof the biological parents.n• Some couples want a biologicalnchild of their own, but the womann