by Darlene M. Pinkerton

This document is not intended to be used as medical advice or medical instructions to any egg donor or any other person interested in donating human tissue. A Perfect Match, Inc. is providing this document to help educate women about some of the issues that may disqualify them from donation of human cells (donor eggs) temporarily or permanently.

The Federal Government has now set forth FDA guidelines that are to be used by IVF centers when determining the eligibility of the person who donates human cell tissue (HCT/Ps). FDA is trying to “adequately and appropriately reduce the risk of transmission of relevant communicable diseases”. The FDA concerns are due to the “high risk” behaviors of those who want to donate human tissue including: organs for transplant, blood products and human reproductive cells. Unfortunately, there have been some children and adults who have developed severe medical complications or have died after receiving donated tissue. In order to protect those who would be recipients of the tissue, the FDA has developed a list of “high risk” behaviors as well as mandated tests for screening the potential donors before the tissue will be accepted and allowed for use by the tissue procurement center.

This following list of required tests was last updated by FDA in February 2008, so in the future the FDA may eliminate tests, add additional tests or change the method for specific tests in the future as there are advances made in technology and knowledge. Each tissue procurement facility (IVF center) may add to the list of tests required by FDA, but all facilities are required to test for the following unless they meet specific exemptions as allowed by FDA:

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV types 1 and 2)

Hepatitis B (HBV)

Hepatitis C (HCV)

Human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV types 1 and 2)

Syphilis (treponema pallidum)

Cytomegalovirus (CMV).

They also require additional tests for donors of reproductive cells: Chlamydia and Gonorrhea.

Please keep in mind that a positive result for some of the required tests may only disqualify you for a specific period of time; whereas, positive results for other tests will permanently disqualify a person. There are also some exceptions made if the egg donor is “a known donor” to the intended parent and/or the person who will be carrying the pregnancy. The exact qualifications to be classified as a “known donor” (and therefore exempt from disqualification based on positive test results) can only be determined by each IVF center. Generally, a “known donor” is an intimate sexual partner, a family member, or a person known to the recipient for a long time. With egg donation, however, a known donor may also be a woman who has agreed to meet with and give her contact information to an intended family so they can have an ongoing relationship. Please don’t assume you will be unable to donate if you test positive under any of the categories that would normally disqualify you as a donor without first checking with your agency and IVF center through which you will donate.

FDA is not only concerned with high risk sexual behaviors (though in egg donation that is certainly the main reason for disqualification from donating eggs), FDA is also concerned with a person’s drug usage, incarceration in prison, and diseases that may be contracted during the donor’s travel outside of the U.S. Some areas of the world are on the “hot list” of places that have a high risk of exposure to such things as SARS, HIV, West Nile Virus, Malaria and Mad Cow Disease, etc. (and now Swine Flue). Some of these communicable diseases may only require deferment of the donor for a specific time period after potential exposure and/or treatment of infection; whereas, the symptoms of Mad Cow Disease may take many years to appear and exposure during the specified times listed my mean permanent deferment of the donor. Generally, the rule of thumb is that if a person has been rejected as a blood donor they will also be rejected as an egg donor or as any other type of donor of human tissue. Please see the following list of Blood Bank criteria for donors, which will include countries that are considered “hot spots” and dates for travel or residency that most blood banks use when determining the eligibility of a blood donor.

The following websites will give you information about the FDA requirements for “at risk or high risk behaviors” and will help you see if you qualify as a donor of human tissue.

FDA Guidance for Tissue Donation

The specific section is 1271.47 and 1271.75(a)

Also, you can go to www.ASRM.org and look up Summary of “Eligibility Determination for Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, And Cellular And Tissue-Based products” and ASRM BULLETIN Volume 6, Number 29, May 20, 2004

Sexually Transmitted Diseases

We have also included links to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) information regarding their studies on the trends for sexually transmitted diseases. Please read these because they are saying that STDs are far more harmful to women and that it can definitely cause infertility. Every woman should be proactive in understanding STDs as well as being proactive in protecting herself from those STDs through safe sex techniques, which includes use of condoms for any type of sexual activity.

Main page for STD reports

Fact Sheet for HPV vaccine

This is 2007 stats for sexually transmitted diseases

Trends in sexually transmitted diseases

Highest risk populations: women and minority women

Infertile couples around the world have found California to be a favorable legal forum for a surrogacy and egg donation. California Courts have taken the lead of all U.S. jurisdictions by favorably extending existing California Family Law statutes to protect all parties to surrogacy and egg donation pregnancies. Prospective parents, surrogates and egg donors can be reasonably certain that their intentions, as expressed by their agreement, will be upheld in California. The California courts have consistently upheld the intended parents’ rights and obligations to their parenthood when they use a surrogate or egg donor to help create their families. This result will generally hold true regardless of whether the parents use their own genetic material, donated eggs or artificially inseminate a surrogate.

Read More at Surrogacy.com

Law Extends Parental Rights for Gays

Lesbians in the District no longer will need the written consent of their partners to adopt children born to their partners through artificial insemination, under a new law that took effect Saturday.

The name of a consenting spouse or unmarried partner will appear on the child’s birth certificate as the legal parent, a status that previously had to be obtained by same-sex parents through a complicated adoption process.

The Domestic Partnership Judicial Determination Parentage Act of 2009 puts the city out front when it comes to children born of same-sex parents, according to the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington (GLAA) and American University law professor Nancy Polikoff.
“With the enactment of this measure, the District has become the first jurisdiction in the country to enact a statute specifically providing children born through artificial insemination with two legal parents from the beginning even when those parents are a same-sex or different-sex unmarried couple. A similar law goes into effect January 1, 2010, in New Mexico,” according to a news release the groups issued today.

“A mother should not have to adopt her own child,” said Polikoff, who helped draft the legislation that was shepherded by D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large). “When a heterosexual married couple uses artificial insemination to have a child, the husband does not have to adopt the child born to his wife. He is the child’s legal parent automatically. Now the child of a lesbian couple will have the same economic and emotional security accorded the children of heterosexual married couples who use artificial insemination.”

The enactment of the law follows a new law that recognizes same-sex couples married elsewhere as legally married in the District. The D.C. Council is expected to legalize gay marriage in the city later this year after legislation is introduced.

Introduction
Since late 2008, there has been increased attention paid to the issues affecting intended parents from the U.K. upon their return home with a child born through surrogacy in the U.S., so we’d like to address that here.

First and foremost, it is very important that prospective U.K. intended parents seek the advice of an experienced assisted reproduction lawyer in the surrogate’s birth state, and retain legal counsel in the U.K. before moving forward with a surrogacy arrangement in the United States.  It also appears that the U.K. intended parents should be matched with a single surrogate rather than a married surrogate, however counter-intuitive that sounds (see discussion below under “Naturalizing the Child as a U.K. Citizen” and to go through an additional U.K. parental order process to confirm their parental rights once they’ve returned to the U.K.

Although the U.K. statutes governing this area have been on the books since 1985 and 1990, a 2008 high court ruling and recent media coverage has changed things. The High Court ruling in the case of In Re X and Y in December 2008, involving U.K. intended parents trying to return home after their child was born in the Ukraine, and a number of surrogates from India in high-risk multiples pregnancies with complications who came to the U.K. for free healthcare, resulted in increased scrutiny of foreign surrogacies from the U.K. media and U.K. government.  The Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (HFEA), recently amended in 2008, are the U.K. laws which relate to surrogacy and parental rights in the U.K.

Surrogacy Arrangements Act:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1985/cukpga_19850049_en_1

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1990/ukpga_19900037_en_1

While these statues have been in effect for quite some time, and perhaps ignored and not enforced, the recent In Re X and Y case and the events mentioned above may have changed this.

Summary of the U.K. Law & Position on Surrogacy
Surrogacy Arrangements Act:  Under the Surrogacy Arrangements Act, a surrogacy agreement is not enforceable in the U.K. and a surrogacy arrangement found to be a “commercial surrogacy” is not permitted.  Therefore, current best practice is to categorize/characterize payments to the surrogate as living expense reimbursements similar to an adoption, as unpaid surrogacy is permissible under U.K. law.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (HFEA):
Even though the surrogacy arrangement would be lawful in the United States, the U.K. law will govern the surrogacy, as the HFEA specifically applies to surrogacies within and outside of the U.K.

Under the HFEA, a surrogate would be legally considered the “mother” of the child and has an absolute right to object to parental rights being given to someone else even if the intended parents and surrogate have obtained a parental order in the U.S.  The surrogate may provide her consent; however, during the course of the intended parent’s application for a parental order in the U.K. (if the surrogate is married, her husband must provide his consent as well).  Once the surrogate gives her consent under U.K. law, the intended parents can obtain their U.K. parental order (provided other requirements are met as well). Therefore, the intended parents should make an application to the U.K. court, submit the necessary consents, and obtain a U.K. parental order, because the surrogate (and the surrogate’s husband if she’s married) will not be deemed to have fully relinquished her (their) rights until a U.K. parental order is in place.

U.K. Parental Order Process
As part of the U.K. Parental Order application process, the High Court will review the surrogacy agreement and will review the U.S. parental order as “expert evidence from the surrogate country.”  A U.S. court order of parental rights will not carry full (or possibly any) legal weight; although, the High Court may consider it, if for nothing else, to determine whether the process that the intended parents completed in the U.S. is considered legal in the United States.

In reviewing the surrogacy agreement, the High Court will consider the underlying financial arrangement. As mentioned above, U.K. law prohibits compensation and only permits payment of expenses reasonably incurred. However, the court, upon review, can retroactively allow reimbursement which goes beyond this so long as it is not disproportionate (in the court’s eyes). The High Court will also require, as mentioned above, consents from the surrogate and her husband if she is married.  Under U.K. law, the surrogate (and her husband, if married) cannot give such consent until 6 weeks after the birth (this is considered a “cooling off” period for careful and full reflection of the “rights” she is perceived to be giving up).

Very important: The application for a parental order must be lodged within 6 months of the birth. This time limit cannot be extended. The High Court (and these cases are typically heard in London) will typically schedule a hearing and issue its order anywhere between 3 and 9 months from the date of lodging the application.

Who can apply for a parental order?
Under the HFEA and recent amendments to the HFEA, married couples, heterosexual couples who are not married and same-sex couples whether or not they are in a civil partnership (U.K. civil union) can apply for a U.K. parental order, but at least one of the Intended Parents must be domiciled in the U.K. The recent amendments to the HFEA expanded application to unmarried heterosexual couples and same-sex couples, and there is a provision allowing for retroactive applications for a parental order for these couples (which is an important step forward since the HFEA otherwise contains no provisions for an extension of the time limit (6 months) to apply for a parental order).

Single parents cannot apply for a U.K. parental order. Single parents will need to adopt or may be able to apply for what’s called a “residence order”, although it really depends on the situation: If the single parent is a man whose sperm has been used and the surrogate is not married, he would not need to do anything further (but technically he would share parental responsibility with the surrogate without further order of a court on the issue of his parental rights).

In summary, we strongly recommend that intended parents returning to the U.K., make plans to apply for a U.K. parental order upon their return. U.K. intended parents should be speaking with experienced attorneys in the U.K. as early as possible in their surrogacy process, for advice that is specific to their situation and for information on estimated costs of the legal process in the U.K. (which could range from £15k to £50k).

Immigration and Citizenship Issues
Another and potentially more pressing issue for U.K. intended parents are the immigration and citizenship issue. This may not be so apparent at first. First and foremost, all intended parents from other countries should speak to a local immigration attorney as early as possible in their surrogacy process to educate themselves on how to prepare to return home and naturalize their child.

A child born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen and can obtain a U.S. passport for the purpose of flying home upon the presentation of a completed passport application and the child’s birth certificate. The recent increased scrutiny and awareness of foreign surrogacies, however, has caused immigration officials at Heathrow to start asking questions of people returning to the U.K. with a child that was born in another country and, in some cases, detaining them or prohibiting their re-entry.

Some intended parents (straight couples and single mothers) may be able to simply re-enter the U.K. with the child on a U.S. passport without any questions at customs.  However, if the intended parents are a same sex couple, or a single male, there may be more questions by the customs agent, so preparation is essential.  All new U.K. intended parents through surrogacy must be prepared to state their plans to naturalize their child and will have a limited amount of time to do so once they return.  If the intended parents are prepared, have spoken to local counsel and have appropriate U.S. documentation (birth certificate, court order, U.S. passport for the child, etc.) with them upon their arrival, then the likelihood of being detained or prohibited re-entry is much lower.

Naturalizing the Child as a U.K. Citizen
Technically, because U.K. law requires a U.K. parental order, and this order cannot be applied for until returning to the U.K. acquiring U.K. citizenship for the child prior to the return home (unless the U.K. Home Office or the local consulate has given a discretionary grant of citizenship) could be problematic.  If the surrogate is not married, and an intended father’s sperm was used and he is a U.K. citizen, then U.K. citizenship should be fairly automatic and routinely given upon return (either automatic citizenship or citizenship by descent), although there are some exceptions.

However, if the surrogate is married, U.K. law presumes the surrogate’s husband to be the father, therefore, the only way to bring the child in to the U.K. legally is with discretionary leave of the U.K. Home Secretary, which can take a long time to get and will probably be conditional on obtaining a U.K. parental order within 12 months (which is not guaranteed, e.g. if the surrogate then refuses to consent or the High Court does not grant the parental order). One other possibility is to apply for temporary entry clearance, which might or might not be granted and would likely be conditioned upon obtaining a parental order. In practice, the question may be one between going back to the U.K. pretty easily and being stuck abroad for a lengthy time…all based on whether the surrogate is single or married.  Also, consider that if for some reason the U.K. parental order is not granted at least the intended father (or one father in a same-sex couple) automatically “qualifies” as the child’s father under U.K. law if the surrogate is not married.

Conclusion
While in the past many couples may have re-entered the U.K. with their child (on a U.K. or U.S. passport) and not obtained a U.K. parental order, there may be complications, which arise, including but not limited to: the surrogate may make a claim for parental rights; the child’s rights of succession/inheritance may be challenged; and child custody determinations pursuant to a divorce may become more complicated and protracted.

As more U.K. parental order applications are filed and the U.K. High Court provides additional guidance in this area, there may be further updates to the above information, but in any event, you should seek current advice from legal counsel in the U.K. and the U.S. regarding your specific situation at any given time. We hope that family formation through surrogacy in the U.K. evolves as it has in much of the United States.

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2000 Donation dilemmas Selling of eggs gives birth to controversy By James Hebert STAFF WRITER September 3, 2000 “If (a couple) doesn’ t have an egg of their own, they’ re faced with a choice. Do they just pick a donor out of a hat? Can they not choose hair color? If they can choose something, then what shouldn’ t they be able to choose?” “Why is there an end to what they can choose?” In early June, as the semester was winding down at UCSD, the classified section of the campus newspaper was full of the usual ads for moving sales and vacant apartments. Tucked in among the blurbs for bunk beds and computer desks, just under the label “Wanted,” was a modest-looking notice with the catch line: “EGG DONOR, $25,000.” It went on: “Loving, educated couple seeks egg donor, age 18-32, Caucasian, 5′ 3″ to 5′ 9″, fit, healthy lifestyle, cheerful disposition, high SATs (1300+).” Take away the first few phrases, and this could have been just another personals ad. Yet the ad’ s matter-of-fact phrasing belies what it symbolizes: An ongoing revolution in the way humans bring new life into the world, and in how we think about the consequences of that act. And at the intersection of the ethical, legal and emotional issues that swirl around egg donation stand the people who placed the UCSD ad: a San Diego County couple named Thomas and Darlene Pinkerton.

Thomas, a lawyer, and Darlene, a former real-estate agent, operate an Internet-based egg “brokerage” out of their home near Alpine. The agency, run by Darlene, is one of many that have sprung up nationwide in the past few years. All of these agencies perform essentially the same service: They act as matchmakers between egg donors and prospective parents. The Pinkertons, though, have gained a certain visibility for offering donors something the other brokers generally don’ t: large amounts of cash. Last year, the couple began placing ads in Ivy League college newspapers offering $50,000 for egg donors who met certain stringent height and SAT-score requirements. Later ads were placed in other college papers including UCSD’ s. The money caught people’ s attention, since donors in other programs are generally paid $3,000 to $5,000. Suddenly, the spotlight was on the Pinkertons. Thomas was quoted in The New Yorker and grilled on CNN. “We weren’ t looking for publicity,” he says. “We were just looking (on behalf of) a client, who I guess was one of the first not to be able to find what they were looking for. They were a very tall family who were highly educated. They were looking for a very tall person who was highly educated.” Not surprisingly, the high fees caused alarm among people in the infertility field. “It represents commodification of infertility services, really, which is something we don’ t like to see,” says Margaret Hollister, executive director of the national infertility support group RESOLVE. “We support family building with dignity for all involved, and we certain ly support egg donation. I think there are some very successful programs that operate with more modest fees.” The Pinkertons have heard the criticism. When Thomas appeared on CNN’ s “Crossfire,” he laments, “they were accusing me of baby-selling. No matter how many times you say it, we’ re not selling a baby.” As Darlene explains, “It’ s not a son or daughter. It’ s genetic material that gives the possibility of a life. But it’ s not a life.”

Personal Experience
What adds some emotional resonance to the service the Pinkertons offer is that they once were in the same position as their clients. In 1990, their daughter, Kati, was born. Dad was at bedside. So was Mom. Kati was conceived in vitro from Darlene and Thomas’ egg and sperm, but she was carried by a surrogate — her aunt, Thomas’ sister Judy. But even though Darlene was, in legal terms, the “intended parent,” the state Health Department wanted to list Judy as Kati’ s mother on the birth certificate. Thomas had to get a court order for Darlene to be listed as the mother instead. That experience is what eventually steered Thomas away from real-estate law and into work on surrogacy and egg-donation cases. It is now 100 percent of his practice. The egg-donation agency was born about a year and a half ago, after the Pinkertons were approached by the couple on whose behalf they eventually placed the $50,000 ad. Some 75 donors are on its rolls now, says Darlene, with three to five new ones arriving each month. “This is hugely emotional,” Darlene says of her work with the agency. “It really is. When it doesn’ t work, I cry. When it does work, I cry. “We get to know these families, and we’ re very, very involved with their lives.”

Money Matters
Of the many issues raised by egg donation — the possibility of health risks to donors, the questions it raises about the meaning of parenthood — the money issue is the one that has generated the most heat lately. The idea of free-market eggs has been taken to such outlandish extremes as last year’ s “Model Eggs Auction,” an Internet-based gimmick that turned out to be little more than a publicity ploy for a soft-porn site. But to the Pinkertons, trying to place limits on egg recipients’ freedom of choice is like stepping into quicksand. “If (a couple) doesn’ t have an egg of their own, they’ re faced with a choice,” Thomas says. “Do they just pick a donor out of a hat? Can they not choose hair color? If they can choose something, then what shouldn’ t they be able to choose? “Why is there an end to what they can choose?” Darlene says the reason their agency has attracted clients is that the money it offers brings in donors who aren’ t available elsewhere. The clients, she says, may have been at another agency and said, “‘ Don’ t you have any smart donors?’ And the agency will grudgingly refer them to us.” Some couples will explain to the Pinkertons that they’ re both graduates of Ivy League schools: “Intelligence is very important to them… They’ re just concerned that in the high-pressure corporate world or whatever that they’ re used to, a child that doesn’ t at least have a chance of being pretty intelligent just wouldn’ t fit in with their family.” Dr. Michael Kettel works with egg donors and recipients at the San Diego Fertility Center. Although the center has its own donor program, the clinic’ s clients include people referred by outside agencies, including the Pinkertons’ . Does he hesitate at the idea of donors being offered upward of $50,000? “Yes and no,” Kettel says. “It clearly is above and beyond the typical reimbursement for time and trouble, there’ s no doubt in my mind. In our program, we reimburse our donors $3,500. So it’ s orders of magnitude different. “And yet I do respect the fact that there are highly successful women with pedigrees that are highly difficult to find,” and that “hypothetically” at least some of those traits could be passed on to a child. “It’ s not something I would endorse,” Kettel adds, “nor do we foster that kind of economic fervor in our donors.” The dilemmas of egg donation go beyond money matters. Some observers are concerned that the process may pose long-term risks to donors, who must inject themselves daily with hormones and drugs for several weeks to prepare their bodies for egg recovery. The San Diego Fertility Center, which has 20 to 40 potential donors on its rolls at any one time, restricts each donor to five such “cycles,” a commonly accepted limit. “But that’ s completely arbitrary,” says Kettel. “There’ s no science to say that’ s good or bad.” Then, as Harvard University law professor Elizabeth Bartholet points out, “There are a whole range of children’ s issues wrapped up in these reproductive techniques. There’ s the issue of not knowing their genetic heritage, there’ s the idea of there being a price put on you. “Is the idea that your genetic mother sold you, or part of what became you, problematic?” Thomas Pinkerton counters, “If my child had to have a kidney transplant, would I tell her that part of her really isn’ t her? It’ s kind of the same thing. I think it’ s a very personal decision that each couple has to make for themselves.” Darlene has wrestled with these issues in a different form: In 1993, she and her ex-husband donated lobes from their lungs to save the life of their son, Ty Hartup. “I can truly tell you — and I imagine this is how the (egg) donors feel: that may have been my lung before, but when it went in his body, it was his,” she says.

One other issue is the potential for misuse of new reproductive technologies, as with the scandal that broke in 1995 at a fertility clinic run by the University of California Irvine. The university was hit with more than 100 lawsuits after doctors at the clinic were accused of taking donated eggs without the donors’ consent and providing them to other women, leading to some 15 births. The clinic’ s director, Dr. Ricardo Asch, who also ran a fertility clinic at UCSD, decamped to Mexico when the scandal erupted. He was finally fired in July. Real world Thomas Pinkerton acknowledges that egg donation is a confusing and daunting and debate-stirring subject. “But it should be, because it’ s new,” he says. “One of the exciting things about it is that we’ re breaking new ground. “But we try to keep our eye on the ball, which is the infertile couple. How do we assist them in a way that’ s ethical, in a way that meets their needs?” Darlene says the uproar over the money issue obscures the fact that the donors, according to her, really do want to help someone start a family. “What I really have seen is that when I tell people they weren’ t chosen by this $50,000 family, they write back and say, ‘ I’ d still like to donate.’ “I’ m sure the money is an important factor, but it’ s not the bottom line.” Thomas cites statistics that “one in five or one in six couples are infertile.” The essence of their work, he says, is to offer those couples choices so they don’ t have to give up their dreams of having a child.” “Sometimes I’ m very discouraged,” says Darlene. “And then we get a call that someone is pregnant. And I say, ‘ OK, this is what it’ s all about.’ ”

How Far Can It Go
As a sign of the kinds of ethical quagmires that egg donation could create, consider a position paper put out in 1997 by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. The statement grapples with the possibility that the technology eventually might exist to recover eggs from aborted fetuses, mature them and then provide them to infertile couples. The implications are staggering. A person could have a child without ever having been born herself. Or a woman could be implanted with the fertilized egg of her own unborn child, thus having her own genetic “grandchildren,” with an entire generation left out of the equation. Not surprisingly, the ASRM decided the whole thing would be a very bad idea. “The use of fetal oocytes (eggs) for oocyte donation,” it concluded, “should not be pursued.” — James Hebert

The Ethics of Eggs
The first successful donated-egg pregnancy occurred in Australia just 16 years ago. Some 5,000 egg-donation procedures now take place each year. Doctors, legislators and support groups have rushed to come up with guidelines for egg donation and other alternative approaches to infertility, such as surrogacy. In February, state Sen. Tom Hayden introduced a bill to regulate egg donation in California. In its present form, SB 1630 would mandate licensing of doctors and clinics who perform egg-donation procedures, and require the state health department to establish a donor registry. It also would ask the department to consult with medical experts and other interested parties about whether there should be a limit on financial compensation to donors. RESOLVE, a national infertility organization, has issued a statement that while it supports donation, it is “concerned about the loss of equitable access for consumers who wish to build families through egg donation, and in the exploitation or improper enticement” of donors. “The point we wanted to make,” says Margaret Hollister, executive director of the Massachusetts-based group, “was that this really should be a more voluntary kind of process. And of course these high dollar amounts make it seem more coercive. In other words, harder to pass up.”

- James Hebert Copyright 2000 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.