I am very grateful to writer George Gurley for enabling me to tell my story on the front page of this week's New York Observer, which came out today. He did a phenomenal job. I will always remember this day.

That said, in an article of this length (nearly 4,000 words!), there are inevitably a few inaccuracies, and I would like to take the opportunity to correct them here:

• I strongly object to Gurley's statement uptop that I was "working some of [my] pro-life views into an article." To say that I was working my own views into the piece implies that the information I added was untrue. I wrote that that in-vitro fertilization routinely results in the destruction of embryos. The fact is that only 10 to 20 percent of all embryos created outside the womb go on to produce pregnancies.
  
  In addition, as the Washington Post has reported, there are currently over 400,000 embryos in frozen storage in the U.S.. Not all embryos survive freezing, and the live-birth rate is lower for frozen embryos than for ones that are not frozen. I stand by what I added to Susan Edelman's article and believe it is perfectly relevant given the article's subject matter.


• Gurley's attempt to explain the nature of in-vitro fertilization is garbled. He writes: "Through in-vitro fertilization, multiple embryos are fertilized and implanted one at a time until as many as 12 survive." What he means is that, for each woman who receives in-vitro fertilization treatment, as many as 12 embryos are produced. They are implanted—actually two or three at a time—until one or more survive. The remainder are frozen or destroyed.


• Edelman's article came out January 9, not January 16.


• My Tuesday Night Trivia pal's name is spelled Nick Sarames (not "Saramef").