{"id":33122,"date":"2025-01-06T22:04:37","date_gmt":"2025-01-06T22:04:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/?p=33122"},"modified":"2025-01-06T22:05:19","modified_gmt":"2025-01-06T22:05:19","slug":"ivf-and-human-embryos-the-debate-we-must-have","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/ivf-and-human-embryos-the-debate-we-must-have\/","title":{"rendered":"IVF and Human Embryos: The Debate We Must Have"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By: Chuck Donovan, originally published January 2, 2025, The Washington Stand<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last February, the Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling on the status of human embryos created via in vitro fertilization (IVF) \u2014 a ruling that had ironic results. Rather than find that human beings created in this manner represent things of limited value, the court \u2014 siding with parents whose embryonic children were destroyed against their wishes via lax security at the clinic where they were stored \u2014 ruled that the embryos were persons within the meaning of Alabama law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The media and popular reaction to the decision was swift \u2014 and negative. By valuing the embryos as it did, the court sparked alarm among advocates of IVF that its availability would be curtailed as a result if embryos were treated as the legal equivalent of children at other stages of development. The entanglement of the issue with the abortion question emerged, and reactions from political actors across the spectrum were strong. Even pro-life figures like Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Katie Britt (R-Miss.) stepped forward and announced their support for a bill<\/a> to bar federal Medicaid funding to any state that banned IVF within its jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alabama\u2019s conservative legislature likewise acted swiftly after the state\u2019s IVF clinics suspended their services in the aftermath of the court ruling. In the first week of March, Governor Kay Ivey (R) signed a shield law<\/a> that protected IVF providers from liability lawsuits over actions that lead to the damaging or death of human embryos in their clinics. The new law allowed the clinics to resume their services. By summer, then-candidate Donald Trump carried the issue further, responding to questions about his views on abortion by announcing his support for federal action to compel either government or private insurance companies to cover the cost of IVF procedures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The irony of a court decision that ultimately protected clinics from liability and not embryos from negligent destruction is stark. Schoolchildren are persons, but a ruling to that effect would not be likely to lead to a law exempting bus drivers from injuring or killing them through negligence on the road. What is going on here? The answer is complex and has some things, but not everything, to do with the politics of abortion. IVF is a process that has led to the conception and birth of children to millions of infertile couples, as well as to single parents and same-sex couples via surrogacy. Worldwide between 1978 and 2022, some 12 million children are estimated to have been conceived and carried to term with the assistance of IVF.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In many ways, the Alabama ruling may prove to be beneficial in the long run. First, it reflects the high stakes that are involved in the practice of IVF, which entered medical history with the birth of Louise Joy Brown in July 1978. There should be no debate at all about the significance of this human being or the value of her life. On the other hand, provided it happens, the dramatic array of questions that arise about the status and treatment of \u201ctest-tube\u201d babies can now be debated anew as half a century of experience with the practice has passed with little or no discussion in many countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One essential place to begin that discussion is with a new white paper published by the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG). Like the Alabama Supreme Court, the AAPLOG committee holds for the full humanhood of children conceived in the laboratory. The debate begins, but does not end, there. The paper does not call for the practice to be outlawed but it likewise does not accept the idea, reflecting practice in the U.S. if not generally, that there must be no limits on IVF and no practices designed to serve the safety and well-being of IVF babies and their families.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The questions are manifold, but first a look at what is known and unknown about IVF in the United States. The report is in the form of what AAPLOG calls a \u201ccommittee opinion,\u201d a document designed to guide medical personnel on what constitutes the best and most ethical practices. The opinion<\/a> is titled \u201cEthical Treatment of Human Embryos,\u201d and it underscores the considerable gaps in our knowledge about what is transpiring today in clinics and laboratories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n