When it comes to family dreams, Sarah Mitchell always imagined a bustling household filled with laughter and little ones. But as she and her partner embarked on their journey to parenthood, they encountered more obstacles than they ever anticipated. After successfully welcoming their daughter via intrauterine insemination (IUI), Sarah spent the next seven years navigating the emotional rollercoaster of infertility, attempting to expand their family.
After 34 embryos, five heartbreaking miscarriages, three rounds of in vitro fertilization (IVF), two IUIs, one frozen embryo transfer (FET), and ultimately, no viable pregnancies, Sarah decided it was time to close the door on her hopes of having children with her own genetics. Like many others, Sarah is part of the one in eight couples struggling with infertility. Thanks to advancements in reproductive technology, she was able to pursue her dreams of parenthood, but current legislative efforts related to “personhood” might threaten these options.
Since 2008, over ten state-level bills have attempted to define human life as beginning at conception, causing significant concern among infertility advocates. Each of these bills has been met with strong opposition, as the infertility community fears that defining personhood could undermine crucial reproductive medical practices. With new personhood bills introduced at the federal level, advocates are preparing for yet another battle to protect their rights to family-building.
Back in 2009, Nadya Suleman, popularly known as “Octomom,” made headlines after giving birth to eight children through IVF. Following this event, lawmakers in Georgia introduced the “Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos Act,” aimed at regulating embryo transfers and establishing personhood rights. This was not an isolated incident; personhood language has been included in various legislative attempts, raising alarms among reproductive health professionals.
Dr. Jamie Foster, a reproductive endocrinologist in Atlanta, emphasizes the potential risks of personhood legislation. “These bills are often framed as a means to restrict abortion, but the implications for IVF and infertility treatment are dire,” she explains. “For instance, only about 30% of embryos will result in live births. If embryos are granted the same legal rights as full-grown adults, we could be putting IVF practices and those who run them in jeopardy.”
In states like Oklahoma, where personhood bills are gaining traction, Dr. Amy Resnick is advocating for patients and physicians alike. “Supporters of these bills often overlook the unintended consequences,” she asserts. “If embryos are treated as people, the ramifications for IVF could be catastrophic, leading to fewer successful pregnancies and higher costs for patients.”
Should these personhood bills pass, medical professionals may be forced to revert to outdated practices reminiscent of the early days of IVF. Instead of utilizing modern techniques to create and store embryos, many may have to revert to more invasive methods, increasing the risk of complications and health issues.
Moreover, the implications extend beyond just infertility treatments. The legislation raises troubling questions about the future of medical interventions for ectopic pregnancies, which can pose serious risks to a pregnant person’s health. Without clear protections for those seeking IVF or similar treatments, many fear that personhood bills will turn reproductive healthcare into a legal minefield.
Currently, there are two personhood bills under consideration at the federal level: H.R.586, the “Sanctity of Human Life Act,” and H.R.681, the “Life at Conception Act.” With numerous co-sponsors for each bill, advocates for infertility treatments are growing increasingly concerned about their potential impact. “Going through infertility felt like being repeatedly knocked down,” shares Sarah. “I can’t imagine navigating a complicated IVF cycle only to face restrictions that could cost us thousands of dollars and our hopes.”
While these bills do touch on the topic of IVF, they offer no protections for those seeking or providing infertility treatments. The only mention of IVF is in the context of defining human life, which could lump embryos created in a lab in with other human rights issues, complicating already fraught situations.
As Sarah articulates, “Infertility is a deeply personal battle, and we deserve the freedom to make medical decisions alongside our doctors without political interference.”
In summary, personhood bills pose a significant threat to the future of reproductive healthcare and IVF access for those yearning to build their families. The ongoing legislative efforts could set back years of progress in fertility treatments, leaving many to wonder what the future holds for their dreams of parenthood.