Two Alabama families at the center of the wrongful death lawsuit that led to the temporary suspension of in vitro fertilization procedures in the state have asked a judge to overturn a new law that protects clinics and doctors from civil and criminal liability.
Their challenge to the law raises the possibility that access to IVF could once again be in jeopardy in Alabama. And it could further inflame tensions across the country over whether to enshrine protections for IVF, as influential Christian conservatives seek to curb the use of the popular reproductive treatment.
Alabama lawmakers quickly passed the protective law in early March after the state Supreme Court intervened in the lawsuit and ruled that frozen embryos could legally be considered children. The families had filed the lawsuit over the accidental destruction of their embryos at a Mobile clinic in 2020.
Several clinics had closed to avoid the threat of legal challenges, adding to the emotional, financial and physical toll of infertility for Alabama families suddenly left in medical limbo.
The rapid passage of the shield law led clinics to reopen and restart embryo transfers. But the law did not explicitly address the legal question of “fetal personhood” raised by the state Supreme Court opinion, and many in the Republican-dominated Legislature acknowledged that they would most likely need a more permanent solution.
This week, after the clinic asked that the wrongful death lawsuit be dismissed, the families argued that the protective law was a violation of their constitutional rights, including equal protection, due process and “life guarantees.” , the right to life” of the Alabama Constitution. have children and the right to compensation for the wrongful death of those children.”
“Medical errors happen,” the families’ attorneys wrote. “People suffer seriously when they do it. “Our Legislature should not have rushed to judgment and conferred blanket civil or criminal immunity.”
The families argued that because Alabama voters had voted to “recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children” in the state Constitution, another constitutional amendment was the only recourse to change the protection law.
The case is likely to return to the state Supreme Court, where Chief Justice Tom Parker, in his last term, issued a fiery theological opinion warning that “human life cannot be unjustly destroyed without incurring wrath.” of a holy God. “
The new challenge to the shield law comes as Southern Baptists, the country’s largest Protestant denomination, voted this week to oppose the use of IVF at their national conference. The public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention previously asked the state’s Republican governor, Kay Ivey, to veto the law as “a hasty reaction to a troubling situation.”
IVF has also become a sensitive political issue for Republicans, who have struggled to reconcile their long-held belief that life begins at conception with overwhelming support for IVF treatments. Democrats have tried to link the downfall of Roe v. Wade and the end of the constitutional right to abortion with efforts to more broadly curb access to reproductive medicine.
Sen. Katie Britt, one of two Republican senators from Alabama, is among conservatives who have tried to counter arguments that the party does not support reproductive medicine, championing legislation that would block Medicaid funding for any state that bans IVF treatment.
But efforts to fast-track that bill, as well as a Democratic-led push to advance a separate measure that would codify access to fertility treatments, failed this week in the U.S. Senate. And while Republicans in Montgomery, Washington and throughout the election campaign have been quick to reiterate their support for IVF, the anti-abortion movement has also taken steps to curb the way fertility treatments are used across the country.
Keynote USA
For the Latest Local News, Follow Keynote USA Local on Twitter.