According to Stan Barnes, a political consultant and former Republican state senator in Arizona, the issue at hand clashes with the current political climate for the Republican party. Any state that takes a bold stance on this matter brings attention to it, causing some people to reconsider supporting a Republican candidate in the general election.

He stated that even if other states do not adopt Alabama’s approach, the decision from the court presents a challenge for Republican candidates in this year’s election, as they will be forced to address questions about abortion that they may prefer to avoid.

Numerous Republican politicians, such as ex-President Donald Trump, have attempted to persuade voters that they support a moderate stance which allows for some abortion rights but implements sufficient limitations to satisfy anti-abortion organizations. However, the Alabama legal case shifts attention towards the agendas of staunch conservatives, who not only aim to abolish abortion access, but also restrict certain methods of birth control and reproductive healthcare.

The recent developments in the case have the potential to greatly impact the GOP’s stance on abortion and the idea of fetal personhood in the upcoming presidential election. This was evident on Wednesday when presidential candidate Nikki Haley, who has criticized her party for being overly critical of women who choose to have abortions, showed support for the decision made in Alabama.

According to an interview with NBC News, Haley, who openly discussed her choice to undergo artificial insemination for conception, considers embryos to be babies.

Certain anti-abortion and religious organizations have advocated for limitations on IVF for a while. However, the belief that disposing of extra embryos is comparable to abortion has mostly been a minority viewpoint within conservative communities. A few prominent GOP leaders, such as former Vice President Mike Pence, have openly shared their personal experiences using IVF to start their families. Additionally, Republican state officials have made efforts to reassure voters that any abortion bans enacted after the overturning of Roe v. Wade would not affect the availability of IVF.

In December, Kellyanne Conway, who previously served as a senior advisor and campaign manager for President Trump, visited Capitol Hill to present the findings of a poll conducted by her firm KA Consulting. The poll revealed strong support for IVF, including among individuals who consider themselves pro-life and Evangelical. The results showed that 86 percent of those surveyed support access to IVF, with 78 percent of self-identified pro-life advocates and 83 percent of Evangelical Christians in favor.

According to a memo from Conway’s team, advocating for increased access to and availability of contraception and fertility treatments can be a valuable political move for candidates and current members of Congress. This issue has widespread support across the political spectrum.

According to legal professionals, the decision in Alabama that makes it a crime to destroy embryos under the “Wrongful Death of a Minor” law could potentially go against state and federal laws protecting religious freedom. This ruling has already caused one hospital system to cease all IVF services and may be at risk of legal action.

Some individuals of the Jewish and Unitarian faith, along with others, have opposed strict laws banning abortion in multiple states, claiming that these laws violate their religious liberties. They argue that these laws blur the separation of church and state and force a Christian perspective on the definition of when life begins onto the public.

In a legal document, it was cited in a request for the Florida Supreme Court to prevent a proposed amendment regarding abortion rights from being included on the November ballot. This could also influence the decision of the Kentucky lawsuit by weakening the state’s efforts to dismiss the case.

Dr. Christine Ryan, the associate director of reproductive rights at Columbia Law School, stated that the plaintiffs in the Kentucky case were accused by state officials of being overly dramatic about their risk. However, this serves as evidence that laws like these pose a significant threat to the ability to form a family using this method. Dr. Ryan also emphasized the importance of this case for the plaintiffs, as it validates their fears that they may not be able to create their families in the necessary manner.

The decision by the court is causing a stir in Alabama, as legislators and conservative advocates work to address the practical and political obstacles it has presented.

Eric Johnston, president of the Alabama Pro-Life Coalition and writer of the state’s 2019 near-total abortion ban, stated that there are currently five IVF clinics in Alabama. However, these clinics are uncertain of how to proceed due to fears of being sued by plaintiffs’ lawyers. It is urgent that a solution be found in a timely manner.

However, according to legal experts interviewed by POLITICO, there is a possibility to contest the Alabama ruling on the grounds of religious liberty violations. However, they also noted that the court, which recently ruled in favor of personhood for embryos, is unlikely to side with this challenge.

Micah Schwartzman, director of the Karsh Center for Law and Democracy at the University of Virginia Law School, stated that if an individual’s religious beliefs require them to use IVF in order to have children, they may argue that this ruling imposes a significant burden on their ability to freely practice their religion. The issue at hand is whether the Alabama courts, which recently made a strong decision on this matter, would grant a religious exemption in light of their belief that an embryo is a person. Given their previous stance, it is likely that the court would be doubtful of such a challenge.

According to various experts who shared their views with POLITICO, Chief Justice Tom Parker of the Alabama Supreme Court included religious language in his concurring opinion that could potentially be challenged under the Establishment Clause. This clause requires the separation of church and state. In his opinion, Parker frequently referenced the Bible and declared that all human beings possess the image of God from the moment of conception, and therefore their lives should not be taken as it would diminish God’s glory.

However, according to Cornell Law School professor Nelson Tebbe, the use of “crazy religious language” in the concurring opinion does not increase the likelihood of success for this type of challenge.

He explained that this is simply a coincidence where no other justice agreed, which is different from state lawmakers being influenced by religion when creating a law prohibiting abortion.

This report was made with the assistance of Megan Messerly.