Unresolved on IVF

Spencer Goidel and his wife were undergoing in vitro fertilization treatments when last month’s Alabama Supreme Court ruling caught them by surprise. The court ruled that embryos created during in vitro fertilization (IVF) are classified as unborn children under Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The decision sparked fears that parents or fertility providers could face prosecution for destroying embryos created through IVF, leading some providers to stop offering the service.

The Goidels were in the middle of the egg retrieval process, and Spencer’s wife, Gabby had already taken medications to stimulate her ovaries to make more eggs. Their clinic halted IVF procedures after the ruling, so the Goidels finished the process in Texas, where they now have three embryos stored.

The ruling surprised Goidel, a political science professor at Auburn University in Alabama, mostly because IVF has widespread national support, even among conservatives. According to an Ipsos poll last month, roughly half of Republicans opposed the Alabama ruling, at least in theory. A YouGov poll last month found that only 8 percent of Americans surveyed morally oppose IVF.

Goidel said those numbers send a strong signal to Republican lawmakers that criticizing IVF would spark backlash. Meanwhile, Democrats are trying to paint Republicans who oppose IVF as anti-family and those who support IVF as anti-life. Either outcome could damage GOP lawmakers’ chances of reelection in tight races. Republicans have responded by maintaining vague support for IVF, leaving trickier regulatory questions for another time.

IVF providers routinely create more embryos than a couple can use in one pregnancy to increase the chances of success and to avoid the costs of repeated egg retrieval. People who object to IVF often cite the threat to human life posed by the destruction of unused embryos and by the selective abortion of children when a mother becomes pregnant with multiples. (Implanting multiple embryos in a woman’s uterus at one time also increases the likelihood of at least one healthy birth.) The Roman Catholic Church, one of few organizations that claims IVF is immoral, not only opposes the practice on pro-life grounds but also because it has the potential to turn children into commodities and to corrupt the purpose of sex.

U.S. Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., introduced a House resolution last week supporting IVF. “There is nothing more pro-life than helping women start and raise families,” Cammack said in a statement.

Cammack also co-sponsored last year’s “Life at Conception” Act. The act states without exception that life begins at fertilization, which would seem to include embryos created outside the womb. Democrats have pointed out a perceived inconsistency between supporting IVF while protecting embryos from destruction, arguing that Republicans want to curtail women’s rights.

“Now isn’t that crazy?” said Rep. Lois Frankel, D-Fla., in a news conference for the Democratic Women’s Caucus Members on Feb. 29. “Republicans want to force women to stay pregnant against their will, while also preventing women who want to get pregnant from doing so.”

But most Republicans have advocated for IVF in the wake of the Alabama ruling. Rep. Michelle Steel, R-Calif., withdrew her cosponsorship of the Life at Conception Act last week, also introducing a nonbinding resolution in support of IVF.

“I believe life begins at conception,” she wrote in an op-ed for The Orange County Register. “Having experienced it firsthand in starting a family, I am an ardent supporter of IVF. I believe nothing is more pro-life than helping families have children and I do not support federal restrictions on IVF.”

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., introduced a similar resolution on Feb. 29 to support continued access to IVF in cases like Alabama’s. Mace and her co-sponsors argue that this is one of the most pro-life positions they could take.

“IVF treatments are extraordinarily helpful for those who struggle with infertility, and actions that curtail access to this important medical procedure rob countless Americans of the joys of family life,” one of the resolution’s cosponsors, Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, R-N.Y., said in an email to WORLD.

Goidel said he thinks Republican lawmakers are promoting resolutions and not proposing new laws so they can get credit with constituents for supporting IVF.

“And it allows them to take that stance without having to make some call about when life begins,” he said.

Michael B. Moore, a Democratic businessman running for Mace’s House seat this fall, accused Mace of hypocrisy for not taking legal action.

“Now, she’s hoping voters are too dumb to realize that her new resolution does nothing to protect the procedure.” he said in a post on X.

Even as Democrats criticized Mace’s resolution for not going far enough, some conservatives criticized it for supporting IVF without any ethical caveats. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America stated that Mace’s resolution “takes an ‘anything goes’ approach.” The organization pointed to a Louisiana law that allows IVF, but considers an embryo a “juridical person” who cannot be intentionally destroyed.

“The Mace resolution leaves no room for reasonable laws like the one in Louisiana that for decades has protected human embryos while also allowing IVF,” SBA wrote in a statement. The resolution was referred to committee.

Emma Waters, research associate for life, religion, and family with the Heritage Foundation, said the lack of nuance may be intentional, especially during an election year.

“With something this personal and complicated to explain, it’s really hard to provide a full answer on IVF in a 32-second news clip that doesn’t make you seem like you’re anti-IVF,” she said. She said that to avoid saying something that can be used against them during the election, many Republicans are choosing vagueness.

House Speaker Mike Johnson recently told CBS he supports the sanctity of human life, and therefore IVF, but “it’s something that every state has to grapple with.”

Waters said there are several federal regulations that could better uphold the dignity of unborn persons while keeping IVF legal.

“This has been an incredibly detrimental approach to the issue of vitro fertilization by the mainstream media,” Waters said. “They’ve painted a strict binary where either you are fully in support of IVF with no limitations … or you must be an anti-IVF, anti-woman bigot who wants to remove access to the treatment from women and the couples who need it most.”

Instead, Waters said, Congress could limit the number of embryos transferred at once into the mother’s womb. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommends no more than one embryo be transferred at a given time, but the U.S. has higher rates of multiple embryo transfers compared to other nations.

Another option could be limiting the number of embryos created in one round of IVF. Over 1 million embryos are frozen in the United States. Germany limits the number of embryos created to three, and Poland to six.

Republicans could also consider laws that limit or prohibit pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Waters said many European nations already regulate testing for sex, skin color, or disabilities before implantation.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a law on Thursday protecting clinics IVF from liability, and clinics resumed treatments. Goidel and his wife wept for joy when they heard the news, even though they will have to continue treatments in Texas now that their embryos are stored there. Goidel said controversy over something this early in the election year would normally die down by November—unless one party continues to politicize the issue.

“Of course, Democrats are going to try to make this not a resolved issue,” Goidel said. “So I do think Democrats will really make a concerted effort to get Republicans to take public stances on IVF throughout the cycle.”