Legislation was advanced on Tuesday in Alabama to protect providers from the consequences of a court ruling that classified frozen embryos as children. This comes after lawmakers faced pressure from the public to resume in vitro fertilization services in the state.

The state Senate and House committees passed identical bills that aim to shield IVF providers from legal action and criminal charges in cases of “embryo damage or death” during their services. Following a recent decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the state’s three primary IVF providers halted their services due to the extensive liability concerns it presented.

The current focus is finding a solution to assist these families in their efforts to conceive, according to Rep. Terri Collins, who introduced one of the bills. The legislation is set to receive final approval on Wednesday and will then be sent to Gov. Kay Ivey for her signature.

Legislators have expedited the process of passing the immunity bill in hopes of reopening clinics. They are also considering if further measures are necessary.

The court decided that three sets of parents, whose frozen embryos were destroyed in a storage facility accident, are able to bring about wrongful death claims for their “extrauterine children.” This decision, which considers an embryo to be equal to a child or developing fetus in terms of the wrongful death law, has sparked concerns about potential legal responsibilities for fertility clinics.

The recent ruling of the court sparked a swift negative reaction, with various groups across the nation expressing apprehension over the decision to classify embryos as children. In Alabama, individuals awaiting embryo transfers had their plans disrupted and their hopes of becoming parents were uncertain.

The Davis-Dillard family witnessed the Senate committee’s decision. Upon relocating from New York, the couple moved unused frozen embryos from their prior pregnancies to Alabama.

“We have been preparing to attempt another cycle. We currently have remaining embryos from our previous cycle, which took place in New York. These embryos were transferred to our current location, but unfortunately, we are unable to use them. We are currently on hold. Due to my age of 44, time is of the essence and we do not have the luxury of waiting indefinitely. Our ultimate goal is to have another baby and we are eager to give it a try.”

Beth David-Dillard expressed feelings of helplessness and frustration, stating that she was also feeling a bit of disbelief. Prior to transferring their embryos to Alabama, the couple briefly considered the state’s strict abortion ban and political climate as potential issues, but ultimately believed it would not be a problem.

She expressed that it seems as though our freedoms are being limited.

The proposed laws declare that any individual or entity involved in in vitro fertilization will not be held liable for any damage or loss of an embryo.

Legal action may be taken against companies that produce IVF products, like the nourishing solutions necessary for embryo development. However, there are limits on the amount of compensation that can be awarded and criminal charges cannot be brought. Physicians are worried that without safeguards for manufacturers, they may struggle to access the necessary supplies for IVF treatments.

Alabama Fertility’s Dr. Michael C. Allemand stated that the proposed legislation would enable the clinic to once again provide IVF services by restoring “normalcy” regarding liability concerns.

He stated that the recent weeks have been challenging for both patients and staff due to the postponement of procedures.

Allemand expressed that there have been incredibly emotional discussions.

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, a collective representing IVF clinics nationwide, stated that the legislation falls short. Spokesperson Sean Tipton mentioned on Monday that the legislation does not address the root issue, which is the court’s ruling that equates fertilized eggs with children.

The House Democrats introduced a bill to establish in state law or the state Constitution that a human embryo located outside of a uterus cannot be classified as an unborn child or human being under state law. Democrats claimed that this was the most straightforward solution to address the matter. The Republicans have not raised the suggestions for a vote.

Republican lawmakers in Alabama are facing the consequences of an IVF dilemma that has been partly caused by their implementation of anti-abortion language into the state’s Constitution in 2018. This amendment, which was passed with the support of 59% of voters, states that it is the official policy of the state to acknowledge the “rights of unborn children.”

The statement formed the foundation of the court’s decision. Advocates believed it would enable the state to prohibit abortion in the event of Roe v Wade being overturned, while critics contended it could define fertilized eggs as “persons.”

Collins stated that in her opinion, legislators did not make a mistake with the amendment. However, the language used was too general, resulting in unforeseen consequences.

Collins, the sponsor of the strict abortion ban in the state, expressed her belief that any legislation excluding embryos from legal protection could potentially be deemed unconstitutional based on the 2018 amendment. According to Collins, altering the constitution would require further discussion.

She stated that it creates a lot of division as people have strong views on the beginning of life.

The Republican party is facing a difficult situation as they try to balance public support for in vitro fertilization (IVF) with internal disagreements. Some Republicans have made attempts to implement language similar to Louisiana’s in order to prohibit clinics from disposing of any unused or undesired embryos, but have been met with opposition.