Explore the vast range of titles available.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Indiana, and Maryland all allow embryonic stem cell research but prohibit compensation to egg donors; the National Research Council advises against compensation.10 Beyond the United States, the International Society for Stem Cell Research recently drafted guidelines that merely prohibit \"undue inducements,\" leaving open the possibility of compensation beyond direct expenses.11 However, California's rules have become \"the de facto standard throughout the world, in large part because researchers elsewhere have to play by those rules if they want to collaborate\" with California's scientists.12 After the passage of SB1260, the first no-compensation legislation in the United States to extend into the growing multi-million dollar private research sector, California's influence on national and international stem cell policy has expanded further.13 In the debate over the passage of SB1260, women's health advocates disagreed about the ability of the no-compensation rule to actually protect women's interests. SB1260 was sponsored by Senator Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento), a veteran of the debates over Proposition 71, and the bill was supported by pro-choice Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, Pro-Choice Alliance for Responsible Research, Women's Foundation of California.14 Supporters contended that allowing payments would \"unduly influence women's decisions to provide their eggs for research\" and that the potentially large sums of money would induce low-income women to subject themselves to unnecessary risks.15 SB1260 was opposed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM).16 They too positioned themselves as defenders of women, arguing that withholding compensation is paternalistic.17 However, ASRM conceded that large sums of money can be coercive.18 With the threat of a drought in the supply of eggs for IVF even without the competition from research, ASRM sought to walk the line between coercion and paternalism and recommended that payment not exceed $5,000.19 Although this figure currently serves as a voluntary guideline for IVF clinics, this standard was rejected in SB1260.20 ACOG and ASRM nevertheless managed to protect unrestricted financial compensation for IVF donors, since SB1260 applies to egg donation for research only.21 Analysis Underlying the debates about the best way to preserve women's autonomy is the seriousness of the medical risks to the donors.22 In a similar context of live organ donations, the potential for harm is so severe that any inducements that might cloud the risk evaluation are forbidden: \"It is illegal for people to be compensated for their organs because it would create undue incentive to undergo high risk with no personal benefit. Women interested in donating their eggs - even those donors motivated by altruism - will have the choice between donating for no money and uncertain research goals or donating for money and the much more certain benefits to an infertile couple. [...]s]tem cell researchers would not only need women willing to make their eggs available for free but women willing to forgo a substantial amount of money in the bargain. [...]of the no-compensation rule, there is a substantial risk of having an insufficient supply of eggs for stem cell research.

Although the CDC has argued that many state laws are inconsistent with the new guidelines, states can consider how to comply with the spirit of the guidelines without abandoning important HIV specific state legislation.