Medical providers across the country are raising concerns about the possible effects of an Alabama Supreme Court ruling related to in vitro fertilization, or IVF. A grassroots organization in Indiana has joined a multi-state effort calling for stronger protections and safeguards for IVF.
In February, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos have the same rights as children. The court decision said parents should be allowed to recover damages for their child’s death, including “unborn children located outside of a biological uterus.”
Healthcare Workers for Reproductive Freedom, a new national network made up of seven health care provider-led organizations, warns the decision “jeopardizes access to IVF.”
The concept of “legal personhood” and where that begins has been at the center of conversations about reproductive rights for decades. The Alabama decision establishes that an embryo would qualify as a “person.”
Providers across the country said this decision could lead to even more restrictions on health care.
Dr. Gabriel Bosslet, the president of the Good Trouble Coalition, said the potential loss of access would be an extension of policies like abortion or gender-affirming care bans.
“It means a further erosion of the ability for physicians to provide evidence-based medicine to patients in Indiana or elsewhere,” Bosslet said.
READ MORE: How 'fetal personhood' in Alabama's IVF ruling evolved from fringe to mainstream
Join the conversation and sign up for the Indiana Two-Way. Text "Indiana" to 765-275-1120. Your comments and questions in response to our weekly text help us find the answers you need on statewide issues, including our project Civically, Indiana.
Indiana code does protect IVF from the language of the abortion ban, but Bosslet said his organization is concerned about a future rollback or federal action that puts that language at risk.
“There was a direct personhood bill that didn't get a hearing this year. So, these things are happening,” Bosslet said. “And there are groups like the Good Trouble Coalition and others that are fighting against.”
Bosslet said the conversation around restricting or banning IVF is an extension of efforts to limit patient choice and access, and it’s the “marching on” of policies that put the government in between the patient and the provider.
“The role of government is to better the conditions and lives of the citizens that it serves. None of this does that,” he said.
Bosslet said providers are concerned about the loss of the care and what this means in the broader context of medical restrictions being put into statute. He also said the discussion around patient access and choice isn’t partisan, it’s a matter of having people in office that aren’t “science-minded.”
“A majority of the people who are in office now are more interested in controlling people's decisions than in safeguarding the ability of people to make their own decisions,” Bosslet said.
Healthcare Workers for Reproductive Freedom has collected thousands of signatures from medical providers in every state who are concerned about patient privacy and safety following the Alabama ruling.
Abigail is our health reporter. Contact them at aruhman@wboi.org.