Casey Lane always envisioned a bustling household filled with children. Yet, when she and her partner embarked on their journey to parenthood, they were confronted with unforeseen hurdles. After welcoming her first child through intrauterine insemination (IUI), Casey devoted the subsequent seven years to the pursuit of siblings for her daughter.
After enduring thirty-four embryos, five miscarriages, three rounds of in vitro fertilization (IVF), two IUIs, and one frozen embryo transfer (FET), Casey ultimately decided to end her quest for a genetically connected family. She and her husband represent one in eight couples experiencing infertility, a challenge shared by millions. Fortunately, advances in reproductive medicine have enabled many, including Casey, to pursue their dreams of expanding their families. However, these medical breakthroughs face potential setbacks due to emerging state and federal “personhood” bills.
Since 2008, ten bills have surfaced at the state level, aiming to establish that human life begins at conception. Despite strong pushback from the infertility community, which fears that personhood definitions threaten reproductive health, every bill has been defeated thus far. With two new personhood proposals introduced federally, advocates for infertility treatment are once again mobilizing to protect their rights to family-building options.
In 2009, Nadine Sullivan, known as “Octomom,” made headlines after giving birth to eight babies via IVF, having transferred twelve embryos into her uterus. This unconventional approach led to her physician’s loss of medical privileges and prompted the American Society for Reproductive Medicine to revise its guidelines. This incident also caught the attention of lawmakers in Georgia, who were quick to propose the “Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos Act,” aiming to restrict the number of embryos that could be implanted during a single cycle while embedding personhood language within the bill.
Andrew Taylor, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist in Atlanta, explained, “The language clearly defined the embryo as a human life with rights independent of the parents. This was an underhanded attempt to integrate personhood into legislation.” Primarily associated with restricting abortions, personhood bills create concerns for those seeking infertility treatments as well.
Dr. Eli Reshef, an infertility specialist in Oklahoma, noted that many proponents of personhood legislation are unaware of its unintended consequences. “Granting embryos adult-like rights—central to these bills—could jeopardize IVF practices,” he stated. Given that only 30% of embryos will ultimately lead to live births, the inability to consent to assisted reproductive technology raises numerous ethical dilemmas around embryo handling.
The ramifications of personhood bills extend beyond merely halting IVF procedures. According to Dr. Taylor, these laws could revert medical practices to outdated methods from the early 1980s, potentially increasing the risks associated with procedures like gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT). This surgical method, which involves placing eggs and sperm directly into the fallopian tubes, raises concerns about ectopic pregnancies—situations where pregnancies develop outside the uterus and can endanger the mother’s life.
Barbara Collins, president of Resolve: The National Infertility Association, highlighted the lack of protections within personhood legislation for those undergoing IVF. She noted, “I have never seen a personhood bill that effectively safeguards IVF patients.”
Despite attempts to add protective amendments, previous legislation in Virginia, such as HB1 in 2012, failed to provide adequate safeguards for fertility treatments, showcasing the difficulties faced by advocates. Whitney Adams, a member of Resolve, expressed frustration at how such legislation could adversely affect the rights of those facing infertility.
Currently, two personhood bills are under consideration at the federal level—H.R.586, the “Sanctity of Human Life Act,” and H.R.681, the “Life at Conception Act.” Although there has been limited movement on these proposals, their introduction has raised alarms among infertility advocates.
“Infertility felt like a relentless series of blows, each one more devastating than the last,” Adams reflected. “I cannot fathom having to halt an IVF cycle in which I’ve invested so much emotionally and financially.” The bills fail to offer any protections for those seeking or providing infertility treatments, with Rep. Hice’s bill only vaguely mentioning in vitro fertilization in relation to the rights of lab-created embryos.
Ultimately, those navigating infertility, like Casey Lane, desire the autonomy to make medical choices without political interference. For further insights on pregnancy and home insemination, visit this excellent resource from the World Health Organization.
Summary
The emergence of personhood bills poses a significant threat to access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) for those experiencing infertility. These bills aim to define human life as beginning at conception, which could have unintended consequences for reproductive medicine. Advocates are mobilizing to protect their rights in light of new federal proposals that lack protections for infertility treatments.