Anna Nibley Baker, a mother of four in Salt Lake City, is pretty sure that she and her husband are done building their family. Since the birth of her last child eight years ago, she has thought of the couple's three remaining embryos, frozen and stored at a university clinic
Ms. Baker is worried that the fate of those embryos may no longer be hers to decide after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of abortion rights. The implications for routine procedures in infertility treatment could be extraordinary if states ban abortions starting from conception.
A field of medicine that is more than 40 years old and used by hundreds of thousands of heterosexual and same-sex couples, single people and surrogate carriers in the US, the hope is to create as many healthy embryos. Doctors usually implant a few of those in the uterus and then freeze the rest.
Ms. Baker may be forced to store unneeded embryos in perpetuity if she is precluded from throwing them away.
Clinics could face criminal penalties if embryos don't survive being frozen.
Many people fear that regulations on unwanted pregnancies could be used to control people who want a baby.
Since the ruling, fertility clinics have been bombarded with calls from patients asking if they can transfer frozen embryos to states with abortion rights. An infertility doctor in Texas asked if he should retain a criminal defense lawyer.
The texts of the laws taking effect don't explicitly target the creation of embryo in a lab. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine analyzed 13 so-called "trigger laws" and concluded that they do not pose an immediate threat to infertility patients. In interviews, leading anti-abortion groups said that embryo creation through assisted reproductive technology is not a priority.
Legal experts warn that as some states draft legislation, the status of these embryos, as well as patients and providers, could become vulnerable.
Barbara Collura, president of Resolve, which represents the interests of infertility patients, said the organization had seen many legislative efforts to assert state control over embryology. She said that those failed due to the fact that we fought back. We don't have that anymore
She said that the case in the ruling that overturned the abortion law was something of a green light for those who wanted to go further.
Trigger bans use the word "pregnancy" to differentiate their target from an embryo. The ban in Utah frames abortion in a way that excludes state jurisdiction over stored embryos. The triggering law is on hold.
The abortion legislation that the National Right to Life Committee holds out as a model for state affiliates and lawmakers refers to all stages of the unborn child's development from fertilization until birth.
In interviews, representatives from four nationwide groups that oppose abortion said that they believe all embryos to be human beings, but that regulating I.V.F. embryos within abortion bans was not their first order of business.
Laura Echevarria, a spokeswoman for the National Right to Life Committee, said that there is a lot of work to be done in other areas. I.V.F. isn't on our radar.
A spokeswoman for Students for Life Action said that I.V.F. has recently become part of the discussion.
She said that they are researching issues like I.V.F. and considering a business model that ends most of the lives conceived in a lab.
Clinics don't have to report the number of frozen embryos they have, so it's hard to confirm a figure in the US. 400,000 is from a study by the RAND Corporation, but the total would be much larger.
Records kept by Resolve show that Republican legislators in at least 10 states have proposed bills in the past year that would give legal personhood to frozen embryos. There have been no passes. According to policy analysts for the American Society for reproductive Medicine, these laws may become more common in the post-Roe world.
Ms. Hamrick said that protection from conception or personhood laws have a bright future.
In the infertility world, the language in some of the ban's language is hard to understand. Arkansas defines an unborn child as an individual embryo from fertilization until live birth.
"We don't know how states will interpret the language, and no one wants to be the test case." I can make good arguments for why the various bans don't apply to stored embryos, but I can't be sure a judge will side with me if I go to court.
Sean Tipton, a spokesman for the American Society for reproductive medicine, predicted that patients and providers would be in for a long period of uncertainty as lawmakers put forth laws and prosecutors try them out.
The decision has removed the condom. If you don't take proper precautions, you'll make some mistakes.
Pre-emptive measures are being taken to protect infertility patients from the threat of abortion bans. Each suggestion has the potential to be problematic.
Judith Daar, dean of the Salmon P. Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University and an expert in reproductive health law, said that passing a state law that would differentiate infertility patients from those seeking an abortion risked having a discrimination impact.
Another type of end-run is to create one embryo at a time by storing sperm and eggs separately and thawing them only to create individual embryo as needed. Strictly speaking, that approach would avoid some of the legal issues that may arise from stored embryos and would sidestep the statutory language that prohibits abortion after fertilization.
The time and cost, as well as the unethical nature of the practice, make it impractical.
Compassionate transfer is a third option that has arisen in the last few years. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine says that the term refers to a request by a patient to transfer embryos in her body. A compassionate transfer is the death of the embryo rather than the destruction of it in a lab.
According to an expert on reproductive health law at the Yale Law School, clinics could be forced to store embryos that are not likely to result in a pregnant woman.
She said that it could mean that compassionate transfer is not recommended because the state has imposed its moral valuation on them.
Ms. Baker is a mother through adoption as well as I.V.F. and feels very attached to her three frozen embryos. As a result of the Supreme Court's abortion ruling, she is struggling to find a way forward.
She can't imagine donating them to another couple, which many in the anti- abortion movement call a "snowflake adoption."
She can't afford to pay for their storage for the rest of their lives.
She doesn't want to have them frozen and arrested in a dish.
Ms. Baker, a critical care nurse, believes that she has the right to make her own decisions. She doesn't think she can have an abortion unless her life is in danger, but she also thinks she should have the final say.
She doesn't want state lawmakers to decide what happens to her embryos.
Ms. Baker said that they are a part of her. We should have the right to decide what happens to them.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
