Alabama Passes Law to Protect I.V.F. Treatments

Bill to Preserve Access State Supreme Court Ruling Ruling’s Possible Implications A New Front in the Abortion Battle U.S. World Business Arts Lifestyle Opinion Audio Games Cooking Wirecutter The Athletic You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load. Bill to Preserve […]

Alabama Passes Law to Protect I.V.F. Treatments

Alabama Passes Law to Protect I.V.F. Treatments thumbnail

You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.

Some doctors said the law would allow them to resume treatments quickly, though legal experts cautioned that state constitutional challenges may still arise.

A crowd of protesters, including a woman holding a child and a sign reading “IVF made me a mom,” gathers in front of the Alabama State Capitol.
Supporters of I.V.F. treatment gathered near the State House in Montgomery, Ala., last week.Credit…Mickey Welsh/The Montgomery Advertiser, via Associated Press

Emily Cochrane

Alabama lawmakers on Wednesday passed legislation to shield in vitro fertilization providers from civil and criminal liability, capping off their scramble to allow the fertility treatment after a State Supreme Court ruling found that frozen embryos should be considered children.

Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, swiftly signed the bill into law, but it was unclear whether the protections would be enough for the state’s major fertility clinics to restart treatments.

Doctors at one clinic said they were ready to begin again as early as the end of the week, while another clinic said it was not assured about the scope of protections and would wait for “legal clarification.”

Lawmakers and legal experts acknowledged that the law did not address existential questions raised by the court about the definition of personhood, leaving open the prospect of legal challenges in the future.

The overwhelming vote of support — 81 to 12 with nine abstentions in the House and 29 to 1 in the Senate — came barely two weeks after the ruling. It demonstrated the intense urgency among Republicans to protect I.V.F. treatments, even if that meant sidestepping the thorny contradictions between their pledge to protect unborn life and fertility treatment practices.

“It’s happy tears, it’s a sigh of relief just because we know we are protected,” said Stormie Miller, a Hoover, Ala., mother who had twin girls through I.V.F. and has two remaining frozen embryos. Talking about the future of those embryos, she added, “We’re able to make that decision for ourselves and not have someone make that decision for us.”


Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.


Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.