IVF ruling takes another chip from feminist foundation of rights
The summer of ‘22 marked the end of federally sanctioned abortions the moment Roe v. Wade -- the landmark court case that protected this essential reproductive right for half a century -- was overturned. As of January of this year, 21 states have fully banned abortions. And now, reproductive rights have even extended to the debate over if an embryo classifies as a child and the morality of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments -- yes, the blob of cells that started it all, the embryo.
On February 16, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that storing embryos in IVF facilities deserved the same protections listed under its Wrongful Death of a Minor Act of 1872 (you read that correctly, 1872). Under this act, parents of a deceased child can inflict punitive damages, or legal recompense that a guilty defendant must pay along with facing compensatory damages, “[w]hen the death of a minor child is caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of any person.” Applying this act to IVF treatments, legal actions can be taken against medical professionals in the IVF field. Before understanding why this ruling sparked outrage across the country, it is important to understand IVF.
IVF treatments are a type of assisted reproductive technology (ART). This technology leads to reproduction by taking a mature egg from the ovaries and then fertilizing it with sperm in a lab. Within the lab, this process all happens in a petri dish, and these medical professionals aren’t fertilizing one egg -- there are about 10-12 eggs that are collected, being fertilized, within the lab. Between 3-5 days after the egg is successfully fertilized, the embryos are inserted into the woman’s womb, boosting the chance of pregnancy. This technology has helped a ton of women; in fact, 1.5% of all babies born in the US were from IVF treatments. That leads to the question, if IVF treatments help more women produce children, then why is it being banned in Alabama?
During IVF treatment, unused embryos can be frozen and used for later if the woman eventually decides to have more children. Freezing these embryos can help preserve fertility, helping future pregnancies for these women. However, in some cases, if these embryos are not treated with care, they can be destroyed, preventing future pregnancies. This is where the Alabama law comes in place; in December of 2020, the plaintiffs, who are really three couples, reported that a patient in the hospital where their frozen embryos were stored broke in and opened one of the tanks of frozen embryos. Embryos are frozen in sub-zero temperatures, which burned the patient’s hand, causing him to drop and shatter the frozen embryos. The original case was dismissed after the plaintiffs brought up the 1872 act, which later would be the reason for the future ruling. However, the couples appealed the decision to the state’s supreme court, and in February, the court granted embryos personhood.
Now, what happened to the plaintiffs is unfortunate, but embryos in no way deserve personhood as they are, in fact, not people. This ruling could lead to more reproductive rights being banned as they could be “wrongful death of a minor,” but the issue is right there -- embryos are not children. In fact, embryos are just fertilized eggs, a blob of cells with no organs. IVF treatment centers had to worry about shutting down because of this ruling, leading to women worrying where they can transfer their frozen embryos, and others worried if the possibility of motherhood was completely out of the picture. IVF has helped so many women, so why does one situation prevent the possibility of motherhood for the rest?
While there is another possibility that frozen embryos might be damaged during the process of thawing after being frozen, that chance is very slim. Frozen embryos are there to help these women continue their dream of motherhood -- so these mothers can have more kids in the future instead of going through surgeries or treatments that may destroy their body. IVF treatments have helped so many in the US and have led to the birth of plenty of healthy children. Why should one incident and the possibility of one or two embryos being destroyed ruin the chances for the rest? And why does a blob of cells have more rights than these women, these parents to be, these clinics?
With Roe v. Wade being overturned, lawmakers obviously have no respect for women; they allow one religion to make the laws for the rest of the citizens when, in fact, underneath the First Amendment, there is freedom of religion. Why is religion determining our rights? Why is religion preventing motherhood when God said to “be fruitful and multiply”? Why?
Granting almost exclusively men sovereignty over the bodies of women has conclusively proven that men know nothing of our bodies, that whatever pleases their beliefs and desires will drive their decisions, and what should become law. However, women are dying from not having access to abortions. Women feel useless when their dreams of motherhood must come to a stop because IVF facilities are shut down. Women feel like they have no voice when all the laws made are there to deny the rights that they have worked so hard in the past just to have. This is the classical definition of patriarchy -- to keep us women as inferior, less than men, and away from politics.
These rulings against our reproductive rights reinforce the need to speak up, speak our minds, and fight in this war against our bodies. The years of our bodies being sexualized, used for the pleasures of men, will come to an end. Reproductive rights are human rights, and women are humans -- we are people too. Abortions, contraceptives, IVF facilities, they are all there to protect our bodies, give us freedom, and live our lives to the fullest. These are our bodies and we will not allow men to have a say in what is done with them.
While Alabama governor Kay Ivey signed a law to protect IVF on March 7, the damages have already been done. Supreme Court rulings hold more power than the governor’s bills. Embryos are still classified as humans, and legal action can be done against medical professionals for “killing a minor”. What makes no sense is that if our embryos are classified as humans, wouldn’t that make all vertebrate embryos humans too. if we all start out the same?
IVF is there to help women and help produce children. Embryos are not children yet -- they are just a blob of cells that haven’t developed into a living creature. Why should embryos have more rights than their mothers? Why should religion interfere with motherhood? Why are men controlling the bodies of women? Alabama’s ruling is unjust towards women, and strips away our reproductive rights. Embryos are not minors -- instead of granting them more rights, it is time for men to understand why abortions exist, why women use contraceptives, and why women go through IVF treatments. Maybe these men that are making decisions against our bodies should go through health class once again and pay attention this time.
by Ruby Pluchinsky
Published April 1st 2024
Oshkosh West Index Volume 120 Issue VI