Republicans who have previously voiced support for in vitro fertilization (IVF) are now facing criticism for their endorsement of legislation that asserts human life begins at conception. This stance, critics argue, contradicts their support for IVF, highlighting the ongoing struggle within the Republican party to reconcile their positions on reproductive rights issues.
The Life at Conception Act
Introduced in January 2023 by GOP Rep. Alex Mooney of West Virginia, the Life at Conception Act has garnered the support of 125 Republican sponsors in the House, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. The Act defines a “human being” as including “all stages of life, from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.” The legislation does not provide an exception for IVF, although it does state that it should not be interpreted as authorizing the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.
A Senate version of the bill, last introduced in 2021, does make an explicit exception for IVF. Sponsored by GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, it states, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization.”
Alabama Supreme Court Ruling and IVF
Following the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos used in IVF are children and those who destroy them can be held liable for wrongful death, several Republicans sought to distance themselves from the decision, affirming their support for fertility treatments. However, Democrats argue that this stance is inconsistent with the House GOP legislation that defines life as beginning at conception.
The Life at Conception Act, if passed, would grant equal protections under the 14th Amendment at the moment of “fertilization” — irrespective of whether the union of sperm and egg occurs inside or outside the body, as in the case of IVF. While the bill does not explicitly ban IVF, Democrats and reproductive rights activists fear that it could have a chilling effect on IVF clinics, similar to the impact of the Alabama ruling.
Political Repercussions
Democrats are seizing the opportunity to highlight the perceived inconsistency in the Republicans’ stance. The House Majority PAC, a super PAC aligned with House Democrats, has spotlighted several vulnerable Republicans who supported the Life at Conception Act. The Biden-Harris campaign account has also posted about the House GOP’s support of the bill.
“House Republicans continue to further their agenda to control women’s bodies and women’s choices at every turn, including legislation that would double down on the Alabama court’s ruling by banning both IVF and abortion nationwide,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Republican Response
Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, a swing district Republican, co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act in previous years, but chose not to support the bill during this session of Congress due to its lack of specific language to clarify misconceptions about the legislation. Despite this, Bacon insists that the bill’s purpose is not to ban IVF, contrary to Democratic claims.
“The author’s intent was not to restrict abortions or IVF, but rather to be a statement of principle,” Bacon said. “Seeing how the Dems distorted the bill last election, I asked that the bill be more carefully written to preclude confusion or distortion. The author opted not to modify the language so I didn’t get on this bill this Congress.”