Alabama politicians draft legislation to save IVF following embryo ruling

Alabama legislators have agreed new laws to protect IVF after the state Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are considered unborn children under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act (see BioNews 1228).

Republican state Senator Dr Tim Melson, a retired medical doctor, introduced a bill to protect IVF providers from criminal or civil charges for providing treatment.

Dr Melson's bill included the text: 'any human egg that is fertilised in vitro shall be considered a potential life but shall not for any purposes be considered a human life…unless the fertilised egg is implanted into a woman's uterus and a viable pregnancy can be medically detected.'

Democrat Anthony Daniels filed a more expansive bill to protect IVF. This legislation would preclude 'any fertilized human egg or human embryo that exists outside of a human uterus' from being equivalent to or treated like 'an unborn child or human being for any purpose under state law.'

Both bills were approved by the state house and senate, and a single bill is now being created that can be put to a final vote.

Alabama is one of several states that define life as beginning at fertilisation. In the State Supreme Court's recent ruling, Justice Jay Mitchell called frozen embryos, 'extrauterine children'.

As a direct result of the verdict, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and two private providers paused all IVF procedures due to uncertainty about the possibility of doctors or embryologists facing criminal charges.

Research has also been affected in the state: UAB has one of only four US programmes offering uterus transplants – recipients of which require IVF to become pregnant. This programme includes research on uterine transplants, IVF, eggs, and embryos, all of which could be impacted by the ruling.

Similar issues are being considered beyond Alabama's borders. In Washington DC, 125 Republican members of Congress are co-sponsoring a federal bill that declares life begins at conception and does not include any exception to protect IVF.

Susan Crockin, a reproductive technology law expert at Georgetown University Law Centre, told Science that: 'It will be very tempting for states that have very strong anti-abortion leanings to try to do copycat legislation… or litigation.'