Governor Kay Ivey of Alabama sanctioned a law on Wednesday aimed at safeguarding in vitro fertilisation (IVF) following a Supreme Court ruling in the state that frozen embryos should be treated as children. This ruling caused at least three IVF providers in Alabama to suspend their services.
The Republican-dominated state legislature supported the plan, which protects IVF practitioners from criminal accusations and civil legal action, after brief discussions on February 29th.
In a Wednesday evening announcement, Ms Ivey highlighted the complexity of the IVF issue and forecast further work to be undertaken. She, however, expressed confidence that the new law would provide the reassurances necessary to allow IVF clinics to restore services immediately.
The February 16th verdict of the Alabama Supreme Court, where all judges are elected Republicans, led to confusion around the legalities of storing, transporting and utilising embryos. This caused some patients to contemplate moving their frozen embryos out of Alabama, resulting in nationwide efforts by Republicans to manage the fallout. Democrats, on the other hand, have leveraged the verdict as proof of the attack on reproductive rights.
IVF is a process that assists couples with fertility issues by combining eggs and sperm in a lab dish to create an embryo.
The Supreme Court in Alabama delivered its judgment in response to lawsuits from three families against a fertility clinic and hospital for inadequately securing their frozen embryos, which resulted in their loss due to unauthorised access by a patient.
Underpinning the ruling was the 2018 Sanctity of Unborn Life Amendment, voted in by the public, which advocates for “the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children”.
The bill sanctioned by Ms Ivey doesn’t necessarily imply a return to regular operations for IVF providers, noted the bill’s proposer, Republican state Senator Tim Melson. In response to a question from another senator about how Alabama IVF providers would handle surplus embryos under the suggested law, Mr Melson highlighted that due to recent rulings, some providers implied an intent to indefinitely store embryos not transferred into a uterus.
“This is likely to be their new policy,” he noted, adding, “That’s not yet in effect, but that’s what they’re planning to implement”.