Facing pressure to restart in vitro fertilization services in the state, Alabama’s governor quickly signed legislation Wednesday protecting doctors from potential legal liability raised by a court ruling that equated frozen embryos to babies.
Republican Gov. Kay Ivey signed the bill into law after it was approved in an overnight session by lawmakers who rushed to face a wave of criticism after services were disrupted at some of the state’s largest fertility clinics . Doctors at at least one clinic said they would resume IVF services on Thursday.
“I am pleased to sign this important short-term provision into law so that couples in Alabama hoping and praying to become parents can grow their families through in vitro fertilization,” Ivey said.
Republicans in the GOP-dominated Alabama Legislature have decided to support the immunity bill as a solution to the clinics’ concerns. But they have avoided proposals that would address the legal status of embryos created in in vitro fertilization laboratories, an action that some say is necessary to finally resolve the issue.
The Alabama Supreme Court last month ruled that three couples whose frozen embryos were destroyed in a storage facility accident could bring wrongful death lawsuits for their “extrauterine children.” The ruling, which treats an embryo the same as a child or a gestating fetus under the wrongful death law, raised concerns about the clinics’ civil liability. Three major IVF providers have suspended services.
The new law, which took effect immediately, protects providers from prosecution and civil suits “for damage or death of an embryo” during IVF services. Civil suits could be brought against manufacturers of IVF-related goods, such as nutrient-rich solutions used to grow embryos, but damages would be limited to the “price paid for the affected IVF cycle.”
Patients and doctors had traveled to Montgomery to urge lawmakers to find a solution. They told of appointments abruptly canceled and how their path to parenthood was suddenly thrown into doubt.
Doctors at Alabama Fertility, one of the clinics that suspended IVF services, witnessed the bill’s final passage. They said this will allow them to resume embryo transfers “starting tomorrow”.
“We have some transfers tomorrow and some on Friday. That means we will be able to do embryo transfers and hopefully have more pregnancies and babies in the state of Alabama,” Dr. Mamie McLean said after the vote.
Similarly, the University of Alabama at Birmingham said it is “moving to resume IVF treatments promptly.”
Liz Goldman was at home, giving her daughter a bottle as she watched the Senate vote live stream. “She didn’t understand, but she thrilled me,” Goldman said of her daughter.
Goldman, whose daughter was conceived via in vitro fertilization after a uterus transplant, hopes to become pregnant with a second child. But her plans were thrown into doubt when IVF services were suspended. With a team of doctors involved in her care, she couldn’t simply move to another state, she said.
“I’m very grateful. The last two and a half weeks have been the most stressful time of my trip and I’ve been through a lot,” Goldman said.
Republican Sen. Larry Stutts, an obstetrician who cast the lone dissenting vote in the Senate on Wednesday, said the bill is an “IVF provider and supplier protection bill” and does not protect patients .
“It’s actually limiting the recourse of mothers involved in IVF and putting a dollar value on human life,” Stutts said.
House Democrats have proposed legislation that says a human embryo outside the uterus cannot be considered a fetus or a human being under state law. Democrats argued that this was the most direct way to address the issue. Republicans did not bring the proposal to a vote.
“We are not providing a solution here,” said Rep. Chris England, a Democrat from Tuscaloosa. “We are creating more problems. We need to address the elephant in the room.”
State Republicans are reckoning with a crisis they partly helped create with anti-abortion language added to the Alabama Constitution in 2018. The amendment, which was approved by 59% of voters, says it’s political state recognize the “rights of unborn children”. “
The phrase became the basis of the court’s ruling. At the time, supporters said it would allow the state to ban abortion if Roe v. Wade had been overturned, but opponents argued that he could have established the “personhood” for the fertilized eggs.
England said the legislation is an attempt to play “whack-a-mole” instead of addressing the real issue: the implications of personhood-like language in the Alabama Constitution.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, a group that represents IVF providers across the country, says the legislation does not go far enough. Sean Tipton, a spokesperson for the organization, said this week that the legislation does not correct the fundamental problem, which is the court ruling that “confuses fertilized eggs with children.”
The bill’s supporters, Republican Sen. Tim Melson and Republican Rep. Terri Collins, said the proposal was the best immediate solution they could find to resume IVF services.
“The goal is to reopen these clinics and allow women to undergo treatment and have successful pregnancies,” Melson said.
Republicans are also trying to navigate difficult political waters — torn between widespread popularity and support for IVF — and conflicts within their own party. Leaders of several conservative and anti-abortion groups, including Students for Life Action and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, urged Ivey to veto the bill, which they called a “reckless reaction to a troubling situation ”.
“Any legislation on this issue must take into consideration the millions of human lives who face the fate of being discarded or frozen indefinitely, violating the inherent dignity they possess as human beings,” they wrote.
Melson and Collins said lawmakers may need to explore further action, but said it’s a difficult topic.
“I think there is too much difference of opinion on when real life begins. Many people say conception. Many people say the plant. Others say heartbeat,” Melson said when asked about proposals to say frozen embryos cannot be considered babies under state law.
Melson, who is a doctor, said any additional legislation should be “based on science and not just gut feelings.”
“I can tell you that right now there are a lot of different opinions about what the right thing to do is,” he said.