Alabama IVF Providers Halt Services as Court Rules Frozen Embryos as Children
In a shocking ruling, the all-Republican Alabama Supreme Court declared that frozen embryos could be considered children under state law. This decision has sent shockwaves through the state’s in vitro fertilization (IVF) community, prompting several clinics to pause their services and leaving patients scrambling for alternatives.
The University of Alabama at Birmingham system, Alabama Fertility Services, and The Center for Reproductive Medicine, along with Infirmary Health, a related hospital system, have all announced a temporary halt on IVF treatments. This sudden pause has left many deserving families in limbo, unsure of their next steps to bring their dreams of having children to fruition.
Mark Nix, the CEO of Infirmary Health, expressed empathy for these families, acknowledging the burden this ruling places on them. He stated, “We understand the burden this places on deserving families who want to bring babies into this world and who have no alternative options for conceiving.”
Gabby Goidel, who was just days away from her expected egg retrieval appointment, received a devastating call from her provider informing her that they would no longer be able to proceed with her embryo transfer. Goidel, who had already experienced three miscarriages, turned to IVF as a way to fulfill her and her husband’s dream of becoming parents. Faced with this unexpected hurdle, she quickly found a clinic in Texas that would continue her care and made immediate plans to travel there.
Expressing her disappointment with the Alabama ruling, Goidel stated, “It’s not pro-family in any way.” She is not alone in her concerns. Dr. Brett Davenport of the Fertility Institute of North Alabama reassured his patients that his clinic would continue providing IVF treatments but also called on state policymakers to take action and eliminate the uncertainty surrounding IVF services.
Dr. Davenport emphasized that IVF clinics are committed to helping couples who are unable to conceive naturally. He urged policymakers to clarify the legal liabilities clinics face in relation to frozen embryos that are not immediately used. This uncertainty may lead patients to make difficult decisions, such as creating fewer embryos or skipping genetic testing. Dr. Davenport emphasized the importance of resolving these issues promptly to ensure the continuation of IVF treatments.
The Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling stemmed from a case involving three couples whose frozen embryos were destroyed due to a mishap at a storage facility. The court allowed the couples to pursue wrongful death claims for their “extrauterine children,” treating the embryos as if they were children or gestating fetuses under the state’s wrongful death statute. This decision has raised concerns about potential legal liabilities faced by IVF clinics during various stages of the process, including freezing, testing, and disposal of embryos.
The court referenced the wording of the wrongful death statute and a 2018 addition to the Alabama Constitution, which recognized the “rights of the unborn child.” Justice Jay Mitchell stated in his opinion, “Unborn children are ‘children’…without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics.”
In response to the ruling, Alabama lawmakers have begun searching for a solution to protect IVF services in the state. Republican state Senator Tim Melson, who is also a doctor, plans to introduce legislation that would clarify the legal protections for fertilized eggs once they are implanted in the uterus. He emphasized the need to balance protecting doctors and making IVF accessible for individuals struggling with fertility issues.
However, Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton, a Democrat, criticized Republicans for pursuing stringent anti-abortion laws and policies that may inadvertently hinder people’s ability to become parents. Singleton argued that these policies have eliminated potential paths for individuals seeking to have children.
Legal experts view this ruling as just the beginning of a broader movement towards establishing fetal personhood. Mary Ziegler, a legal historian at the University of California, Davis School of Law, believes that this ruling will likely lead to further legal challenges in Alabama and potentially nationwide. Ziegler also noted the efforts of anti-abortion groups and politicians to establish fetus rights through federal courts.
Rachel Rebouche, the dean of Temple University Beasley School of Law, sees the Alabama decision as a strategic move by anti-abortion forces in their pursuit of fetal personhood. While it may not be the landmark case they were hoping for, Rebouche described it as a strategic decision to advance their cause.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond Alabama’s borders. Dr. John Storment, a reproductive endocrinologist in Louisiana, expressed concern that the Alabama decision could discourage fertility doctors from practicing in the state. He emphasized that the potential for criminal prosecution would dissuade doctors from accepting such risks when other states and countries offer more favorable conditions.
As Alabama IVF providers pause their services and patients seek alternatives, the future of IVF in the state remains uncertain. The ruling has sparked a broader conversation about the legal status of embryos, fetal personhood, and the impact on individuals struggling with infertility. It is clear that this ruling is just the beginning of a complex and contentious legal battle that will shape reproductive rights and access to IVF treatments in Alabama and potentially across the nation.