In vitro fertilization is a procedure involving the manual fertilization of an egg outside of the body, producing a developed embryo that can be placed inside a uterus. The procedure has existed in medicine for nearly 50 years and has allowed hundreds of thousands of couples with fertility issues to have children. In 2021, about 89,208 live births in the United States resulted from IVF and similar fertility treatments, like intrauterine insemination, in total accounting for 2.4 percent of all births in that year. Since its development, nearly 8 million babies have been born through IVF technology in the United States alone, and the rates of fertility treatment use continue to increase in the United States as, in general, the taboo of its use has diminished.
With constant threats to and regulations on reproductive rights, it comes as no surprise that IVF has recently fallen under attack by conservative politicians. Last February, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that embryos created using IVF techniques are protected as an “unborn child” by the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act (1872), which declared a fetus developing in utero was a child in order to protect parents of pregnancies lost to violence or other incidents. By ruling that this act applied to IVF embryos, these embryos were given the same rights as children. This is problematic because, in most cases, IVF treatments produce backup embryos that can be frozen and used by couples for later pregnancies. With the new ruling, if these embryos are not used and discarded or lose viability due to other circumstances, like improper handling, doctors and clinics can be held liable for the death of children.
After this ruling, clinics in Alabama paused IVF treatments, restricting access and forcing those already in the process to wait or even start over. Eventually, the Alabama Legislature granted immunity to providers for embryo destruction. Still, even though IVF was ultimately protected in the end, the situation created an atmosphere of fear for patients and doctors alike and spurred much debate among politicians.
This atmosphere of fear has lingered and will continue to persist into the future, especially in the scenario of a Republican-controlled Congress or presidency. Since the February ruling and those after it, Republicans have contradictorily voiced support for IVF, calling the procedure “pro-life” while simultaneously supporting the Life at Conception Act, which declares the right to life at the moment of fertilization. If this act is passed, many clinics would be forced to close because embryo destruction could be prosecuted as homicide, which is essentially what happened under the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling with the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.
Further, this past June, Senate Republicans voted against the Right to IVF Act, a bill put forth by Democrats to protect access to IVF nationwide as a right. Many Republicans argued that the bill was unnecessary because there were no current IVF restrictions. In response, the GOP tried to place these restrictions, introducing their own bill, the IVF Protection Act. Despite what the name suggests, the act would heavily burden clinics with restrictions and inevitably force many to close their doors. Without guaranteeing protection to unrestricted fertility treatments, Republican leaders are not truly protecting the IVF process they claim to support. Republicans are not committed to IVF, and their contradictory laws will continue to cost women and families security.
In the upcoming presidential and congressional elections, reproductive rights will once again be a divisive issue. Unrestricted IVF access has been essentially guaranteed to families for decades and denying this access now prevents the people who have a right to have children from doing so. Many Republican leaders use pro-life rhetoric to argue that they will always protect fertility treatments, but their actions show otherwise — restricting IVF through laws like the Life at Conception Act is nearly the opposite of being “pro-life.” The contradictions in the Republican belief system are unfair — giving verbal support to IVF while taking legislative action against it only serves to scare and blindside voters.
Another term of Republican governance would not only mean abortion bans and monitored pregnancies but also further restrictions on birth control and fertility treatments. JD Vance, Trump’s vice presidential pick, notably voted against the Right to IVF Act in June and seems to be generally against and ashamed of fertility treatments, stating that he “wouldn’t have a family because of IVF” and that his children were “born through that direct … [way].” Vance also accused Kamala Harris’ vice presidential pick, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, of lying about his family’s use of fertility treatments. Moreover, Vance makes fertility treatments seem wrong or unnatural, which is widely inappropriate considering the growing need and use for these treatments in the United States. As a now leading and center-stage Republican, Vance’s opinions hold serious weight in the party.
The political issue of IVF and other fertility treatments parallels that of abortion — it is a place where divisive and highly political legislation does not belong. Threats to all reproductive rights deny women full control of their bodies and their right to choose — at the end of the day, unrestricted access to IVF gives women the right to choose to have children on their own terms. While this is a right that should be guaranteed, GOP legislation must keep up with their words.
Antonia Kladias is a junior majoring in biochemistry and is Pipe Dream’s assistant opinions editor.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.