What the Alabama IVF Ruling Reveals About the ‘Pro-Life’ Movement
Reported By: Sierra Reisman
Photo From: Patabook News
On Feb. 16, the Supreme Court of Alabama issued an unprecedented ruling and determined that embryos, stored for in vitro fertilization (IVF), have the same legal rights as children under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. As a result, IVF treatments shut down in the state until an additional bill was signed by the governor protecting IVF providers from criminal liability. Nothing in this bill addressed the repercussions of declaring frozen embryos “extrauterine children.”
Since the ruling, Republican politicians have scrambled to establish a cohesive policy position as their support for IVF now clashes with their anti-abortion views. Republican pushes to protect fertility treatments while simultaneously insisting on the personhood of a fetus prove that there’s nothing inherently ‘pro-life’ about being pro-birth.
This ruling is a direct result of Alabama’s draconian abortion laws, established after the Dobbs ruling. Alabama has some of the strictest laws in the country with a blanket abortion ban making exceptions only for a “serious health risk” to the pregnant person. The Alabama constitution itself also contains the following anti-abortion clause:
“This state acknowledges, declares, and affirms that it is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.”
With language such as this in the state constitution, the IVF ruling is not at all surprising. For IVF treatments to be most effective, more embryos need to be created and frozen as this ensures greater chances of a successful pregnancy. As a result, IVF treatments tend to involve the loss and/or destruction of some embryos. Although the new bill protects IVF providers, the problem of the court ruling remains unaddressed: if an embryo is a person, then abortion and IVF will be tarred with the same brush.
Many Republicans, however, have backtracked their ‘pro-life’ positions in response to the ruling. Governors Bill Lee and Brian Kemp of Tennessee and Georgia have both voiced support for IVF despite harsh abortion restrictions in their states. Former GOP candidate Nikki Haley waffled on her position, voicing both disagreement with the Alabama ruling and agreement that embryos are children.
Arguably the most dangerous part of the Alabama ruling is the Court’s use of religious language to justify the verdict. Religion has always been a central component in the debate surrounding fetal personhood. Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, religious justifications for public policy are being used more and more in ways that should be unacceptable under the separation of church and state. The Court cites a “theologically based view of the sanctity of life” and argues that abortion incurs “the wrath of a holy God.” The use of this language by a judicial body is nothing short of a violation of religious freedom. Let us not forget that forcing people to abide by a religion is just as tyrannical as preventing people from practicing their religion.
The policy inconsistency of anti-abortion Republicans reveals the hypocrisy of the ‘pro-life’ movement. Sympathy for infertile straight couples clashes with apathy towards teenage rape victims over the same issue: the right of people with uteruses to control their own bodies and their own reproduction. There is nothing pro-life or pro-freedom about policing American bodies.