In February, the Alabama Supreme Court determined that embryos are “extrauterine children” and their destruction—even by fertility clinics—could warrant wrongful death lawsuits. In the immediate aftermath, fertility clinics across the state paused IVF services, until the state quickly passed legislation to protect IVF. Still, the impact of court rulings and laws—including abortion bans—that recognize fetuses and embryos as people with legal rights has remained a point of simmering tension across the country, especially among anti-abortion lawmakers desperate to prove their support for abortion bans isn't extreme. This week, Republican senators Ted Cruz (TX) and Katie Britt (AL) introduced a bill to ostensibly protect IVF by threatening to strip states that ban the fertility technology of their Medicaid funding. The duo's IVF Protection Act comes as the GOP continues to navigate a growing internal divide on the issue, as some Republican lawmakers have affirmed the Alabama ruling while others have tried to disassociate themselves from it. In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Britt and Cruz said their bill is "pro-family" and that it "affirms both life and liberty." Barbara Collura, president of RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, told Jezebel on Tuesday that she was “surprised” to learn the two anti-abortion senators had filed such a bill. Despite the bill's stated purpose, its language and varying holes still leave IVF vulnerable, she said. Importantly, the Alabama ruling didn’t state point-blank that it banned IVF; instead, it recognized a routine part of the IVF process (the destruction of embryos) as potentially amounting to wrongful death—which ensured fertility clinics would be unable to offer the service without being vulnerable to costly lawsuits. Collura points out that states are unlikely to impose literal bans on IVF but rather, police and restrict certain aspects of the IVF process. This process involves fertilizing eggs outside of the uterus and trying—often unsuccessfully—to implant them, then destroying those that remain unused. “The bill says that states can impose legislation on any health and safety concerns around the specifics of the IVF process, so it would be very easy for states to say ‘IVF is still legal but has to be done in a particular way,’ in a particular way that clinics can’t do,” Collura said, “but still adhere to the bill.” In fact, often enough, “people will say ‘we support IVF, it’s legal, but,’ and the part after the ‘but’ will make it very hard for our community.” Instead of a bill that gives states free rein to effectively ban IVF so long as they don’t explicitly say they’re banning IVF, Collura says Cruz and Britt should support Sen. Tammy Duckworth’s (D-IL) bill, which codifies a federal right to IVF and would prohibit states from restricting access to the fertility technology. Duckworth's bill also explicitly protects health care providers’ right to offer these treatments without the threat of prosecution. It failed in February because one Republican senator blocked the unanimous consent process for it to pass, calling the legislation a “vast overreach” that’s “full of poison pills that go way too far, far beyond ensuring legal access to IVF.” But Cruz and Britt's bill, specifically its language stripping states of Medicaid funding should they ban IVF, “doesn’t provide any real protection," Collura said. And as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine has pointed out, this feature of the bill “will only punish vulnerable patients and do little to protect fertility care.” Ted Cruz and Katie Britt just released a new bill they claim is to “protect IVF.” Here’s the catches: 1) it does *nothing* to protect IVF from courts enforcing “personhood” laws (see Alabama ruling) 2) it explicitly allows states to push “health…
