Gov. Kay Ivey of Alabama signed a GOP-sponsored measure protecting in vitro fertilization into law on Wednesday night, after weeks of opposition brought on by a contentious decision by the state Supreme Court that declared embryos to be children.
Moments after legislators approved the bill and delivered it to Ivey’s desk, the Republican signed it.
“IVF is a complex issue, no doubt, and I anticipate there will be more work to come, but right now, I am confident that this legislation will provide the assurances our IVF clinics need and will lead them to resume services immediately,” she stated in a press release.
The Republican-dominated Legislature’s prompt move brought an end to a wild few weeks for legislators in the ruby red state, which was spurred by the state Supreme Court’s contentious decision.
Though the legislation passed late on Wednesday does not address the central question raised by the court’s ruling—namely, whether an IVF embryo should be treated as a child under Alabama law—its proponents, who are Republicans, were optimistic that the measure would act as a stopgap measure that would permit the state’s clinics that had ceased operations to reopen.
These clinics had differing rapid reactions: two said they would soon restart services, while one of them declared considerable caution.
The passed legislation is silent on whether frozen IVF embryos have the same legal rights as children under state law. Rather, by providing civil and criminal “immunity” to healthcare providers that provide IVF treatment and services, the specifically crafted measure aims to safeguard physicians, clinics, and other medical staff.
The new legislation would “provide any individual or entity when providing or receiving services related to in vitro fertilization with civil and criminal immunity for death or damage to an embryo.”
“No action, suit, or criminal prosecution for the damage to or death of an embryo shall be brought or maintained against any individual or entity when providing or receiving services related to in vitro fertilization,” the law states.
Legislators eliminated the word “goods” from the bill’s phrase “goods or services” during Tuesday’s debates in both chambers. This means that businesses that supply necessities for IVF procedures may still be subject to civil lawsuits but not criminal prosecution if it is found that their products harm or destroy embryos. The passed measure also sets a ceiling on financial settlements in these cases at the amount that the patients had to pay for the impacted IVF cycle.
Advocates for reproductive rights have said that the most notable supplier of these products could be the liquid solutions used by clinics to assist in the growth of embryos.
These organizations opposed the bill, claiming it did not adequately shield IVF treatment from the more general concerns brought up by the verdict.
While her organization was “relieved that Alabama clinics can reopen their IVF programs,” Barbara Collura, president of RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, stated in a statement that the “legislation does not address the underlying issue of the status of embryos as part of the IVF process — threatening the long-term standard of care for IVF patients.”
Collura said, “There is still work to be done.”
The Center for Reproductive Rights’ senior counsel, Karla Torres, said that the law “falls far short of what Alabamans want and need to access fertility care in their state without fear.”
According to Torres, the legislation amounts to “backpedaling in the face of state and nationwide public outcry to allow politicians to save face.” “Even on its face, this bill seeks to grant personhood to embryos, reinforcing the state Supreme Court’s extreme ruling recognizing embryos as children,” Torres stated.
However, at least two reproductive clinics in the state said they were ready to start providing services again, including embryo transfers, this week.
The law, according to Dr. Janet Bouknight, who works at Alabama Fertility, one of the facilities that stopped IVF following the verdict, “provides the protections that we need to start care, or resume care.”
However, UAB authorities, who had also suspended treatment, advised caution.
A UAB spokesman, Hannah Echols, stated in a statement, “While UAB is moving to promptly resume IVF treatments, we will continue to assess developments and advocate for protections for IVF patients and providers.”
The ballots Following many hearings over the previous several weeks, state legislators engaged in hours of intense and passionate discussion on Wednesday. Despite widespread opposition to the plans, they consistently voted decisively to move them forward.
Pro-reproductive rights Democrats and anti-abortion rights Republicans criticized the measure last week during talks about it for not making it clear if an IVF embryo should be recognized as a child under Alabama law.
While some Republicans had fought for “personhood” wording establishing that embryos were children, Democrats had sought language emphasizing that embryos were not children under the law. Though those legislation never made it far, Democrats in the GOP-controlled Legislature had put forth their own bills that attempted to make it clear that an embryo “outside of the uterus” isn’t “considered an unborn child.”
Republicans who supported the approved measure often said that it was a temporary solution meant to let the state’s many IVF facilities that had shuttered after the verdict reopen without worrying about facing criminal charges or civil lawsuits from their staff.
Ivey referred to the law as a “short-term measure” in her statement after its signature, saying that it may enable “couples in Alabama hoping and praying to be parents” to “grow their families through IVF.”
Her signing, for the time being at least, ends weeks of national backlash brought on by the state court’s ruling that embryos produced via in vitro fertilization are deemed infants.
In particular, the Alabama Supreme Court determined that a state wrongful death statute that declares an unjustifiable or careless conduct resulting in a person’s death is a civil violation allows for the legal holding of individuals accountable for the destruction of embryos. Because some embryos may have genetic problems or may no longer be required, discarding embryos is a frequent part of the IVF process, and suppliers of IVF services and embryo transport may have faced consequences if this had happened.
Following the verdict last month, a number of IVF facilities promptly stopped providing their services, raising wider worries that conservatives opposed to reproductive rights would target the medical technique overseas.
The decision set up a tremendous backlash against Republicans in Alabama and around the United States who have opposed reproductive rights. Former President Donald Trump called for a “quick” solution to the problem, which left politicians in the state scurrying to find one.
SOURCE: NBC NEWS
