A major hospital in Alabama has temporarily stopped offering in vitro fertilization services due to a recent court ruling that has classified frozen embryos as legally equivalent to children. Health care professionals are currently assessing the implications of this decision.

The health system at the University of Alabama at Birmingham has announced that they need to assess the potential risk of criminal charges or punitive damages for patients and doctors who undergo IVF treatments.

“We regret that this will affect our patients’ efforts to conceive a child through IVF,” stated representative Savannah Koplon.

Other IVF providers in the state were still offering fertility treatments.

The decision made by the Alabama Supreme Court, which consists entirely of Republicans, caused widespread worry regarding the fate of IVF procedures in the state. This also raised concerns about the potential unforeseen effects of highly restrictive anti-abortion legislation in states controlled by Republicans. Patients contacted clinics to inquire about the status of their planned IVF treatments, while providers sought legal advice.

The Justices, referencing a statement in the Alabama Constitution acknowledging the rights of unborn children, ruled that three couples had the right to file a lawsuit for wrongful death after their frozen embryos were destroyed in an accident at a storage facility.

In Friday’s majority decision, Justice Jay Mitchell stated that unborn children should be considered as children, regardless of their developmental stage, physical location, or any other additional traits.

Mitchell stated that the court had previously determined that a fetus, which is killed while a woman is pregnant, is protected under Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. Furthermore, he noted that the Act does not make any exemptions for children outside of the uterus.

The decision sparked concerns from various groups regarding its potential effects on fertility treatments and the preservation of embryos. Previously, the court had classified embryos as property, but this ruling may change that. Organizations representing IVF treatment providers and individuals seeking fertility treatments expressed concern over the ruling.

Patients were left uncertain about how this will affect their futures.

Gabby Goidel, a 26-year-old woman from Alabama who has experienced three miscarriages, shared with The Associated Press that the court decision was made on the day she started taking daily injections for her IVF treatment to retrieve her eggs.

“It completely caught me off guard. It consumed my thoughts and caused a lot of stress when I heard it. I quickly contacted my clinic to see if this could potentially delay our progress. They advised us to take things one day at a time,” stated Goidel.

Barbara Collura, the Chief Executive Officer of RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, stated to the Associated Press on Tuesday that the decision poses inquiries for both providers and patients. These include whether they have the ability to preserve embryos for later use after undergoing fertility treatment and if patients are allowed to donate or dispose of any unused embryos.

The ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court was influenced in part by the inclusion of anti-abortion language in the state’s Constitution in 2018. This statement declares that the state’s policy is to safeguard the rights of unborn children.

Eric Johnston, a lawyer and activist against abortion who contributed to the writing of the constitutional language, stated that the goal was primarily focused on addressing abortion. He explained that the intention was to make it clear that the Alabama Constitution does not guarantee the right to abortion, which ultimately paved the way for Alabama to prohibit abortions when states regained authority over abortion regulations.

Johnston stated that modern science has posed the question of whether a frozen fertilized egg can be considered a person. This presents a complex ethical, medical, and legal dilemma currently facing society.

In 2018, critics of the constitutional amendment cautioned that it could essentially grant personhood to fertilized eggs.