Jill Stanek is invited to write a short piece for USA Today and then USA Today rejects it. Below are two blogs from Jill Stanek and the article she wrote that was rejected.

New Stanek WND column, "How USA Today used me (and I let it)"

I don't know who I'm madder at, USA Today or myself.

Last week USA Today editorial writer Louise Branson e-mailed me a request to:

... write a short piece for us about the regulation of fertility clinics in the aftermath of the octuplets scandal, and praising the proposed GA legislation as the standard that should be set nationwide. The piece would need to be around 350 words. It would be an opposing view to our editorial that would warn against the kind of regulation that brings anti-abortion politics into the issue.

"Absolutely," I responded. With a pro-abortion audience in mind, I wrote a piece explaining the harm of egg harvesting to women, the vast number of human embryos killed throughout the in vitro fertilization process, and how human embryo research proponents use the "leftover" embryos excuse to push their agenda. I closed by describing common sense regulations.

I received this response:

Sorry to be a pain, but could I get you to re-do it a bit.... We were hoping to see a piece that would... say the best way to prevent another Suleman case would be to limit the number of embryos that could be implanted and also define an embryo as a person.... We would be less interested in all the medical details as our debate is on how best to regulate fertility clinics.

I was taken aback. USA Today was telling me how and what to write? I responded...

Rejected Stanek op ed to USA Today

On March 18 USA Today printed an op ed I wrote about the need to regulate the in vitro fertilization industry.

There is a backstory.

Following is the original op ed I submitted to USA Today, which its editors rejected.

The sensational story of Nadya Suleman giving birth to octuplets after in vitro fertilization of multiple embryos has spotlighted the need to regulate this Wild West of women's reproductive care.

Currently sea turtles in the U.S. enjoy more procreative protection than women and children.

The procedure to garner eggs for IVF is potentially dangerous to women.

They inject numerous drugs and synthetic female steroids, including estrogen, a known carcinogen, over several weeks to stimulate several eggs to abnormally mature at once....

Side effects range from ovary enlargement and bursting to hemorrhage. Long-term effects are unknown.

The IVF procedure is certainly dangerous to preborn humans. The American Society of Reproductive Medicine states the "live delivery rate" of these embryos is 31.6 percent. So, seven in 10 die.

How? Usually 10 or fewer eggs are harvested, but sometimes more. These are fertilized. The resulting unique human beings are grown in a petri dish and checked for defects. Long-term consequences of removing one cell from an eight-cell human to biopsy are unknown.

Suspected imperfect embryos are killed. Typically the doctor will implant one to five unflawed embryos, although we now know there are no rules. If multiples survive, "selection reduction," or abortion of some, is recommended.

Remaining embryos are frozen. Some die when thawed. Others are killed in the name of science.

Although the actual number of embryos designated for research is scant - 2.8 percent according to Rand Research - these have been touted as a reason for embryonic stem cell research. Otherwise embryos will die having served no useful purpose.

All the more reason to regulate the IVF industry.

Louisiana has had a law since 1985 defining ex utero embryos as human beings with inherent rights. Embryos cannot be destroyed for research. Court disputes over abandoned embryos must be decided in the best interest of the embryo.

All states should pass laws defining personhood as beginning at conception, and there is such a movement afoot.

Meanwhile the Suleman case has exposed a need to regulate the IVF industry, such as is in Germany, which limits the number of embryos implanted to the same number fertilized, up to three. This alone would stop the practice of freezing human embryos and curtail selective reductions.

With good reason, Germany is sensitive to the issue of mistreating human beings."