GOP members are standing in support of in-vitro fertilization, however, this does not resolve the ongoing discussion sparked by Alabama’s Supreme Court decision to classify embryos as individuals.

The ruling from the court surprised the GOP, forcing them to address the philosophical, logistical, medical, and legal implications that arose in regards to the handling of unimplanted, viable embryos.

While publicly stating their backing for IVF, many Republican members of Congress have also endorsed personhood bills that do not make any exceptions for embryos in clinics. This could potentially disrupt the current practice of the IVF procedure in the US if implemented.

The challenge of dealing with specific details highlights the complicated moral dilemmas surrounding the process, which usually involves producing several embryos in the United States, selecting the ones with the greatest probability of success, and disposing of or preserving the remaining ones.

A conflict arises for conservative individuals as they confront the dilemma of supporting parents struggling with infertility while also firmly believing in the rights of a developing fetus. This has led to difficulty in expressing definitive measures and regulations for managing this contentious aspect of healthcare.

The following are additional inquiries for politicians who claim to advocate for IVF:

Do you support the decision in Alabama that has caused hospitals in the state to discontinue IVF services?

The decision from the Alabama Supreme Court was a surprise revelation – a lawsuit regarding the unintended destruction of embryos under the state’s “wrongful death” law, which the completely Republican court utilized to establish that embryos are considered full legal individuals, regardless of being frozen in a clinic or implanted in a uterus. As a result, at least three major clinics in the state have put a pause on all IVF services, causing uncertainty for families seeking expensive treatments.

Many conservatives rushed to praise the judges’ ruling but later acknowledged they were not aware of its implications.

Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina, stated that embryos are equivalent to babies, but later explained that she did not necessarily support the ruling made by the Alabama court.

The individual stated to the members of the press that he fully supported the ruling and deemed it as the correct course of action. However, upon learning that the decision had prevented the possibility of IVF for his constituents, the individual expressed his disappointment and acknowledged the difficulty of the situation.

Several other lawmakers have expressed their approval for IVF, despite also supporting proposals that declare a fetus as a person, which are similar to the wording used in the Alabama state constitution that was referenced in the court’s decision on IVF.

Can embryos be considered as people even without being implanted in the uterus?

The central issue in the Alabama case is determining the status of embryos. While there is widespread consensus among anti-abortion groups that naturally conceived embryos are living beings, a similar agreement does not exist for lab-created embryos that have not been implanted in a uterus.

Conservative states that have adopted so-called fetal personhood laws illustrate these diverging views. A
Missouri law passed nearly four decades ago grants rights to “unborn children,” which it defines as “the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception.”
Georgia’s version defines “unborn children” more narrowly as “Homo sapiens at any stage of development” who are “carried in the womb.”

The laws concerning fetal personhood have different interpretations. This raises concerns about financial support for children, taxes, and the legality of some forms of birth control that prevent implantation rather than fertilization.

Is it ethical to exceed the number of embryos intended for implantation during fertilization? If yes, what should be done with any remaining unused embryos?

Fertility specialists aim to create several viable embryos during the IVF process to give the best chance of a successful pregnancy.
Research conducted by Reproductive Medicine Associates has found that three viable embryos results in a 95 percent chance of a successful pregnancy, compared with a 65 percent success rate with one embryo.

Individuals who desire only one child may find themselves with additional usable embryos. Some individuals opt to preserve these embryos through freezing, in case they decide to have another child in the future. However, others may opt to dispose of the embryos or donate them for research, both of which are viewed by some members of the anti-abortion movement as equivalent to abortion.

Certain individuals who oppose abortion consider it to be a type of eugenics and believe it should be prohibited. They caution against a potential future where parents can choose embryos based on traits like gender, physical appearance, intelligence, and risk of disease.

What is the appropriate course of action for the millions of cryopreserved embryos?

We do not have knowledge of the exact number of embryos stored in cold storage, but various approximations suggest it could be over 1 million.

A decision prohibiting clinics from disposing of unimplanted fertilized embryos prompts consideration of their future, such as identifying who would cover the costs of storage or if they could remain frozen indefinitely.