When Emily Grant and her partner decided to start a family, they envisioned a bustling household filled with children. However, they quickly encountered numerous obstacles on their journey. After conceiving their first child through intrauterine insemination (IUI), Emily spent the next several years trying to provide her child with siblings. Their efforts included thirty-five embryos, seven miscarriages, four rounds of in vitro fertilization (IVF), two IUIs, and one frozen embryo transfer (FET), ultimately resulting in no successful pregnancies. With a heavy heart, Emily concluded her pursuit of expanding their family with their own genetics.
Emily and her partner belong to the one in eight couples who experience infertility during their lives. Like many others, they relied on advancements in reproductive medicine to try to grow their family. Unfortunately, these medical breakthroughs are now at risk due to proposed “personhood” bills at both state and federal levels.
Since 2008, various state-level bills have sought to define human life as beginning at conception. Despite strong pushback from the infertility community—concerned that personhood definitions could threaten reproductive medicine—these bills have repeatedly failed. However, the introduction of two federal personhood bills this year has put infertility advocates on high alert as they prepare to defend their rights to family-building.
The controversy surrounding personhood gained significant attention after a high-profile incident involving multiple births through IVF. In 2009, celebrity Nadya Suleman, known as “Octomom,” delivered eight babies after transferring twelve embryos. This unusual case led to stricter guidelines for embryo transfers and spurred legislative efforts, including Georgia’s “Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos Act.” This bill aimed to limit embryo implantation and included language that sought to establish personhood, prompting concerns from medical professionals about its implications.
Personhood bills are often perceived as measures to restrict abortion access, but experts warn that extending rights to embryos could have dire consequences for those pursuing infertility treatments. Dr. Mark Thompson, a reproductive endocrinologist in Oklahoma City, emphasizes that many supporters of these bills may not fully grasp the unintended outcomes. Granting embryos the same rights as adults could jeopardize the IVF process, as only about 30% of embryos will result in a successful pregnancy.
Dr. Thompson explained that such legislation could hinder IVF practices, as lab technicians might fear legal repercussions for unintentional mishaps involving embryos. “It’s going to prevent us from doing IVF because no lab tech in their right mind will be willing to stand the risk of being accused of murder if they drop a dish with embryos in the lab, inadvertently,” he noted.
Moreover, if personhood bills become law, the standards for reproductive medicine could regress significantly; physicians would revert to outdated techniques from the early ’80s, potentially increasing health risks associated with procedures like gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT). These changes could lead to more ectopic pregnancies, which pose serious health threats.
As the debate continues, many personhood bills lack clear protections for infertility treatments. Barbara Collins, president of Resolve: The National Infertility Association, pointed out that no personhood legislation has successfully included adequate safeguards for IVF practices. She recalled a failed Virginia bill in 2012 that attempted to carve out protections for IVF but ultimately fell short, emphasizing the need for comprehensive understanding and support for those in the infertility community.
Currently, two federal personhood bills—H.R.586 “Sanctity of Human Life Act” and H.R.681 “Life at Conception Act”—are under consideration. These bills have not progressed significantly, yet they raise red flags for advocates, particularly as they do not address protections for those seeking or providing infertility treatments.
As Emily reflected on her own challenges with infertility, she expressed concern about the potential impact of these legislative efforts: “At its core, this fight is about the right to make medical decisions with our doctors, free from political interference during an already stressful time.”
For more information on the complexities of artificial insemination and its legal implications, you can explore resources from MedlinePlus or check out Make A Mom for expert insights.