In recent years, infertility rates have been on a steady rise throughout the United States. CCRM Fertility reveals that about 11% of women have been diagnosed with infertility. Because of these rising percentages, scientists and doctors have worked tirelessly towards finding a possible solution to combat these rates. This effort has led to a solution known as in vitro fertilization, which has now become one of the most successful treatment options for women who struggle with infertility. In vitro fertilization has provided many couples with the opportunity to become parents and has also provided an invaluable tool for medical research, allowing scientists to better understand the causes of infertility and to begin developing better treatments.
In vitro fertilization, or IVF, involves close monitoring and stimulation of a woman’s ovulatory process, removing eggs from their ovaries and subsequently fertilizing them with sperm in a laboratory. The embryos created are then placed in a special incubator for five days before they are either placed back into the mothers uterus or frozen for future use.
While this has proven to be a beneficial procedure for many women over the years, more recently IVF clinics have sparked controversy on an ethical and moral basis, leading to contradictions in the court of law. The state of Alabama has been at the center of the issue since December of 2020, when the embryos of three couples that were undergoing IVF treatment were dropped and subsequently destroyed. Due to the loss of these couples embryos, they had all individually decided to sue the clinic. Two of these couples chose to sue under the terms of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act which is an Alabama statute, and the other plaintiffs affected had sued for negligence and wantonness. The controversy is found in the terms of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, as it does protect fetuses, but does not specifically cover embryos resulting from IVF.
The two cases that had filed a lawsuit against the IVF clinic and hospital had then taken it to court. During this hearing, the court had continued to dismiss the cases and state that the embryos did not necessarily qualify as being human, this ruling had left the plaintiffs unsettled. As a result of this, the plaintiffs had decided to appeal the case and bring it to the Supreme Court of Alabama. Because of this appeal, the plaintiffs were able to get the decision for which they were hoping. Ultimately, Alabama’s supreme court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that the terms written under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act do in fact apply to these circumstances and that the embryos lost in the incident were protected under the state. While the plaintiffs were given the decision they had hoped, it has left the country wondering what’s next.
In June 2022, Roe v Wade was overturned and left the country divided, it is apparent that the ruling in Alabama of recognizing an embryo as a child is having the same effect on the United States. Many treatments regarding IVF treatments have been put on a massive halt, clinics such as Alabama Fertility and two other clinics have suspended their IVF services. This ruling has left parents and patients of IVF questioning what their next steps are. These questions are a direct result of the law being unclear.
Though lingering uncertainty is present across the nation, the Supreme Court of Alabama has come to a final decision for IVF clinics and patients. Late Wednesday on March 6th, Republican Governor Kay Ivey signed a law that in the state of Alabama “civil and criminal immunity” to patients and clinics during IVF services, giving doctors, patients and manufacturers legal cover to proceed with the treatments. Though many were relieved by this law, doctors have still felt uneasy about returning to IVF treatments.
While a decision has been made by the state of Alabama, many questions about the matter are still bound to occur. For other states, will they follow along in Alabama’s footsteps or not? Other arguments such as the science versus law about this case are still being brought up as a result of many questioning the ethicality of the ruling. With no doubt, such debate will continue to arise in the future.
