MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Facing pressure to get in vitro fertilization services restarted in the state, Alabama’s governor swiftly signed legislation into law Wednesday shielding doctors from potential legal liability raised by a court ruling that equated frozen embryos to children.

Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, passed the bill following approval during a late night session by legislators rushing to respond to backlash after services were suspended at major fertility clinics in the state. At least one clinic’s doctors have announced the resumption of IVF services on Thursday.

Ivey stated her pleasure in enacting this significant and temporary legislation, allowing couples in Alabama who desire to be parents to expand their families through IVF.

The GOP-controlled Alabama Legislature, led by Republicans, chose to support the immunity plan as a potential resolution to the worries expressed by the clinics. However, they avoided considering proposals that would tackle the legal standing of embryos produced in IVF labs, something that some believed was necessary to fully resolve the problem.

Last month, the Alabama Supreme Court decided that three couples who lost their stored embryos in a storage facility accident can file wrongful death lawsuits for their “extrauterine children.” This decision, which considers an embryo to hold the same value as a child or developing fetus in regards to the wrongful death law, caused concerns about potential legal responsibility for clinics. As a result, three leading IVF providers temporarily stopped offering their services.

The newly implemented law offers legal protection to providers who offer IVF services, shielding them from prosecution and civil lawsuits in cases where an embryo is harmed or dies during the process. However, manufacturers of IVF-related products may still face civil lawsuits, with damages limited to the cost of the affected in vitro cycle.

Patients and doctors had traveled to Montgomery, to urge lawmakers to find a solution. They described appointments that were abruptly canceled and how their paths to parenthood were suddenly put in doubt.

The physicians at Alabama Fertility, one of the clinics that temporarily stopped offering IVF services, observed the final approval of the bill. They stated that the bill will permit them to recommence embryo transfers beginning from tomorrow.

“Dr. Mamie McLean announced that we have upcoming transfers on both Thursday and Friday, giving hope for successful embryo transfers and increased pregnancy rates in Alabama.”

UAB has stated its intention to quickly resume IVF procedures.

While at home, Liz Goldman was giving her daughter a bottle while watching the livestream of the Senate vote. Even though her daughter didn’t comprehend the events, Goldman felt enthusiastic about them.

After successfully conceiving her first child through in vitro fertilization (IVF) and a uterus transplant, Goldman is now hoping to have a second child. Unfortunately, her plans were thrown into uncertainty when IVF services were put on hold. Due to the team of doctors currently overseeing her treatment, it was not feasible for Goldman to relocate to another state.

Goldman expressed immense gratitude. The last two and a half weeks have been the most challenging period of my journey and I have faced numerous challenges.

Senator Larry Stutts, a Republican and obstetrician, voted against the bill in the Senate on Wednesday. He believes the bill only serves to protect providers and suppliers of IVF, not patients.

Stutts stated that this is preventing mothers undergoing IVF from seeking help and monetizing human life.

The proposed bill from House Democrats specifies that a human embryo not within a uterus cannot be legally classified as an unborn child or human being according to state laws. Democrats asserted this as the most straightforward solution to address the matter. However, Republicans chose not to bring the legislation to a vote.

Representative Chris England from Tuscaloosa, a member of the Democratic party, stated that they are not offering a resolution, but rather adding to the already existing issues. They must address the main issue at hand.

The Republican party in Alabama is facing a difficult situation that they contributed to by including language against abortion in the state’s Constitution in 2018. This amendment, supported by 59% of voters, declares it as the state’s policy to acknowledge the rights of unborn children.

The statement formed the foundation of the court’s decision. In that moment, advocates claimed it would enable the government to prohibit abortion in the event of Roe v. Wade being overturned, while critics contended it could grant “personhood” to fertilized eggs.

The UK stated that the law is an effort to address the problem of “lawsuits popping up randomly” instead of dealing with the actual problem – the consequences of personhood-related terms in the Alabama Constitution.

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, which represents IVF providers nationwide, argues that the legislation is insufficient. Sean Tipton, a spokesperson for the organization, stated this week that the legislation fails to address the root issue of a court decision equating fertilized eggs with live children.

The authors of the bill, Senator Tim Melson and Representative Terri Collins, explained that their proposal was the most effective short-term solution to reinstate IVF services.

Melson stated that the objective is for the clinics to resume operations and for women to continue their treatment and have successful pregnancies.

The Republican party is facing a delicate balancing act, as they must appeal to both their widespread supporters of IVF and also address internal disagreements. Opponents of abortion and conservative factions such as Students for Life Action and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America have expressed their opposition to the bill and urged Governor Ivey to veto it, citing it as a hastily-made decision in response to a problematic situation.

The authors stated that any laws regarding this matter must acknowledge the large number of individuals who are either disposed of or kept in a perpetually frozen state, which goes against the basic value of human dignity that they possess simply by existing.

Melson and Collins suggested that legislators may need to consider alternative measures, however, they acknowledged that the topic is challenging.

When questioned about the suggestion to not consider frozen embryos as children under state law, Melson expressed that there is a lot of disagreement on the exact moment when life truly begins. Some believe it is at conception, while others believe it is at implantation or when a heartbeat is detected.

According to Melson, a medical professional, any proposed changes in legislation should be backed by scientific evidence rather than just instinctual reactions.

“I can inform you that there are numerous viewpoints on the correct course of action,” he stated.