Some in vitro fertilization (IVF) providers in Alabama are resuming services on Thursday, just one day after Governor Kay Ivey signed a bill into law aimed at protecting IVF patients and providers from legal liability imposed by a recent controversial state Supreme Court ruling. However, experts warn that the new law does not address the core issue of personhood at the heart of the ruling, and more work will be needed to fully protect fertility services in the state.
The Alabama Supreme Court's decision last month, which ruled that frozen embryos are human beings and those who destroy them can be held liable for wrongful death, prompted three of the state's limited pool of IVF providers to immediately pause services. This sent some families out of state to access treatment and sparked widespread demand for lawmakers to provide a quick fix.
The new legislation, passed by the majority Republican Alabama House and Senate before being signed into law by Governor Ivey, aims to provide civil and criminal immunity to providers and patients for the destruction or damage of embryos. It also extends immunity to manufacturers of goods used to facilitate the IVF process and the transport of stored embryos. The law applies retroactively.
While two of the three providers who halted IVF services are resuming treatments, the third - the clinic at the center of the state Supreme Court case - told CNN that the new legislation falls short of providing the legal protection it needs to resume care.
Katherine Kraschel, an assistant professor at Northeastern University School of Law, noted that the law "does not nullify the Supreme Court's analysis that says the law ought to treat embryos just like people." Experts have also expressed concern that the legislation, while protecting providers from liability related to embryo destruction, could insulate them from standard medical malpractice claims.
The Alabama House Democratic Caucus criticized the new law as "short-sighted," arguing that it does not adequately address the legal questions of embryonic personhood or the consequences of the Supreme Court's ruling. State Senator Larry Stutts, the lone Republican who voted against the measure, called it an "IVF provider and supplier protection bill" that limits the ability of mothers involved in IVF to seek recourse.
U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat who proposed a national IVF protection bill that was blocked last week, expressed disappointment in the Alabama legislation, stating that Republican state legislators "refused to work in a bipartisan way to pass a real solution to this Republican-created crisis that makes it clear: an embryo is not a human being."
The sponsors of the state legislation, Representative Terri Collins and Senator Tim Melson, both Republicans, have acknowledged that the law is intended to provide immediate relief for families who lost access to IVF services while officials consider more permanent solutions.
Governor Ivey also recognized the new law as a quick fix, noting that "there will be more work to come" on IVF protections. "I am pleased to sign this important, short-term measure into law so that couples in Alabama hoping and praying to be parents can grow their families through IVF," she said in a statement.
IVF patients have expressed cautious relief at the passage of the new law, with some, like Elizabeth Goldman and Gabrielle Goidel, feeling hopeful that their fertility journeys can continue. However, others, like Gabbie Price, have raised concerns about the broad immunity provided to providers and the potential lack of regulations to protect patients from medical malpractice.
As some clinics, such as Alabama Fertility in Birmingham and the University of Alabama at Birmingham, resume IVF services, the defendants in the state Supreme Court case, The Center for Reproductive Medicine at Mobile Infirmary, have stated they will not reopen their IVF facility until they have legal clarification on the extent of immunity provided by the new law.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has warned that without legislation addressing the issue of whether a fertilized egg is legally considered a person, IVF providers remain vulnerable. As the legal battle continues, with groups representing the defendants in the Supreme Court case seeking a rehearing, the long-term impact of the ruling on Alabama families remains uncertain.
