top of page
  • JCI Blog

Supreme Court Scramble–Unpacking IVF Legislation in Alabama and Beyond

By Georgia Antonia Lewis & Jacob Carter

Imagine a world where the path to parenthood is paved with options, where couples grappling with infertility find solace in science, and where women have the power to chart the course of their reproductive journey. In this 21st century landscape, advancements in assisted reproductive technologies like In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) have transformed the once daunting terrain of family planning into a realm of hope and possibility. But amidst these advancements, an underlying concern emerges: How does the convergence of religious ideology and legal precedent impact the accessibility and regulation of IVF treatments?

Behind the legal debates and legislative maneuvers lies a stark reality illuminated by statistics from Johns Hopkins University: over 1.5 million embryos are currently frozen in the United States. For many, IVF represents more than just a medical procedure—it embodies the promise of a family, a dream fulfilled through perseverance and modern science, as well as a lifeline in the face of genetic mutations that prevent successful pregnancies. Yet, the recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling granting frozen embryos the same rights as children reflects a shift towards “fetal personhood,” a once-fringe notion now gaining mainstream traction, is jeopardizing reproductive rights beyond abortion access; activists warn that while the focus remains on preserving abortion and contraception rights, laws embodying “legal personhood” will pose immediate threats to reproductive freedoms (NPR). 

In Alabama, Gabbie Price’s dream of motherhood collided with the recent ruling. With the state now declaring embryos as legal children, the future of IVF hangs in the balance. For Gabbie, who had sold her home and changed careers in pursuit of starting a family through IVF, the ruling represents a devastating blow to her hopes and aspirations. Gabbie stands as a poignant symbol of the challenges faced by countless individuals navigating the complex landscape of reproductive rights in the wake of legal decisions that redefine the very essence of personhood (CNN News).

The Initial Incident: An Overview of the Case that Led to Alabama Supreme Court’s Ruling 

The initial Alabama Supreme Court ruling on February 16th, 2024, which declared frozen embryos as children under state law, emerged from two lawsuits brought by three sets of parents who had undergone IVF procedures and chose to have their remaining embryos frozen. The genesis of the ruling can be traced back to a tragic incident in 2020 when several frozen embryos were inadvertently destroyed in an accident at an Alabama fertility clinic. The devastated parents filed lawsuits against the clinic, initially dismissed by a trial court but later overturned by the state Supreme Court. This landmark decision has sparked widespread debate and concern over its potential ramifications for fertility treatments. Despite the application of new legislation retroactively, its impact on the ongoing cases remains uncertain due to the Alabama Constitution's prohibition on applying new laws to active cases. As defendants seek a rehearing of the case, legal experts express skepticism about the court's willingness to reconsider its ruling, leaving the fate of frozen embryos and the future of IVF treatments hanging in the balance (The New York Times).

The Follow Up: Alabama Passes Law to Protect IVF from a Recent ‘Narrow’ Supreme Court Ruling 

Amidst the turmoil sparked by Alabama's controversial ruling, there's a glimmer of hope for individuals like Gabbie Price who dream of building their families through IVF. In response to the “narrow” Supreme Court ruling that threatened the very foundation of assisted reproductive technologies, Alabama has taken steps to safeguard IVF treatment. This new legislation, passed by lawmakers on Wednesday, March 6th, aims to protect the rights of individuals undergoing IVF, shielding IVF providers from civil and criminal liability, and capping off their scramble to continue to allow fertility treatment (The New York Times). However, while this legislative intervention provides a semblance of stability, questions linger about its efficacy in addressing the broader challenges facing IVF patients. Despite the efforts to mitigate the immediate impact of the ruling, concerns persist regarding the long-term implications for reproductive rights and access to care. For example, two providers who halted services in the state are resuming treatments, but one provider has yet to resume, citing that the legislation does not go far enough, feeling more like “Band-Aid,” rather than a real fix (CNN).

In Jacqueline Alemany's recent exploration of the challenges surrounding IVF regulations and anti-abortion sentiments within the GOP–published on March 14th, a week after the initial law-passing–the focus shifts to the complexities faced by lawmakers in addressing reproductive health issues. The ruling has sparked debates over the legal status of embryos and the need for tighter regulations governing IVF treatments. While some advocate for recognizing embryos as people and imposing limits on IVF practices, others express concerns about the potential repercussions, such as clinic closures and restricted access to reproductive care. This conundrum highlights the delicate balance between ant- abortion beliefs and supporting IVF accessibility. With the Life at Conception Act proposing to extend legal protections to fertilized eggs, discussions intensify over its implications for IVF procedures and embryo handling. Meanwhile, vulnerable GOP members, wary of alienating voters, tread carefully on the issue, leading to a nuanced political landscape where views on reproductive rights intersect with electoral considerations. In response, Democrats seize upon the debate to critique Republican stances on IVF and reproductive health, positioning it as a central issue in upcoming elections. As the discourse unfolds, the public is urged to consider the broader implications of IVF regulations and their impact on reproductive freedoms and healthcare access (The Washington Post).

The Fallacies that Have Led to Today’s Predicament

The Alabama Supreme Court ruling that deems frozen embryos as children under state law has sparked considerable debate and scrutiny from various perspectives. Scientists and advocates alike challenge the ruling on multiple fronts, highlighting the fallacies inherent in its legal reasoning. 

Firstly, critics point out the anachronistic nature of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, enacted in 1872 when IVF was nonexistent and understanding of fetal development was rudimentary at best (American Society of Reproductive Medicine). Moreover, the interpretation of religious texts to assert that human life begins at fertilization ignores the advancements of medical science and the complexities of embryonic development, revealing a disconnect between religious doctrine and empirical evidence. The Bible's authors were unaware of concepts like eggs, sperm, or fertilization. It wasn't until medical science uncovered the basic stages of embryonic development in the mid-20th century that certain religious groups adopted the belief that human life starts at fertilization (BBC News).

Additionally, the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade (1973) and ability to grant states authority to regulate life from conception has greatly impacted IVF. In the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) case, the Supreme Court acknowledged states' legitimate interest in preserving and protecting prenatal life at all stages of development. The court's assertion of states' interests in protecting prenatal life at all stages further underscores the precarious position of reproductive rights in the face of religiously motivated legal interpretations (John Hopkins University). The Chief Justice's ruling in Alabama likened the protection of unborn persons to a biblical principle, emphasizing the sanctity of life from the moment of conception (NBC News).

The convergence of religious ideology and legal precedent underscores a troubling trend in the judicial system, wherein religious values encroach upon secular governance. The invocation of religious beliefs to justify legal rulings not only undermines the principles of separation of church and state but also threatens the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. As the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling reverberates beyond state borders, the implications for reproductive rights and access to fertility treatment become increasingly apparent. The intrusion of religious values into the realm of law not only undermines scientific evidence and medical expertise but also perpetuates a dangerous precedent that prioritizes ideological agendas over individual autonomy and bodily integrity (BBC). 

So, how did we get here? It is a reflection of the insidious influence of the religious right on the court system, perpetuating archaic beliefs that have no place in a modern, secular society founded on principles of liberty and equality for all.

What Happens Now? 

As Gabbie and countless others navigate the ever-changing landscape of reproductive rights, the road ahead remains fraught with uncertainty. While legislative efforts offer a glimmer of hope, the fight for comprehensive protection of IVF rights continues. In the quest for reproductive justice, every step forward is a testament to the resilience and determination of individuals like Gabbie, whose unwavering commitment to building their families knows no bounds.


bottom of page