On Wednesday, September 17th, the Right to IVF Act - a legislation providing citizens with the right to IVF or in vitro fertilization medical procedures - hit the senate floor for a second time after it failed to pass 3 months prior and once again failed to agin the necessary votes to be passed.
The legislation gained 54 votes out of the 60 needed, 44 voting against the legislation. Votes were notably split mainly along party lines, all democrats and two republican senators - Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska - voting in favor, and most republicans voting against the legislation.
Taking a step back, what exactly is IVF? IVF or in vitro fertilization is a medical procedure in which eggs are removed from an AFAB - assigned female at birth - person's ovaries and combined with male sperm outside of the human body to create an embryo to incubate in a lab for several days, to later be placed in a uterus or frozen and stored for later. IVF is a key medical procedure, providing alternative opportunities for those who may have issues with fertility or have damaged reproductive organs, to build a family.
Recently however, IVF has received some political backlash due to a recent Alabama Supreme Court decision, in which they ruled embryos are considered children. Since IVF routinely disposes of embryos, all IVF operations have since halted in Alabama, and a larger question has been proposed, is IVF and ethical procedure?
Republicans and conservatives certainly don't think so, as they have been the main opposition, blocking the Right to IVF Act twice, despite former President Donald Trump and the republican party recently back-pedaling, expressing support for IVF. In an interview with NBC, Trump says he "was always for IVF. Right from the beginning as soon as [he] heard about it".
Since republicans typically follow Trump's stances, Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, an original sponsor of the Right to IVF Act, intended to challenge the validity of Trump and republican's claims to support IVF on Wednesday saying, "if Donald Trump and republicans want to protect peoples right to access IVF, they would votes yes".
Republican Vice President candidate, JD Vance comments on the legislation being blocked in an interview with WEAU saying, "the senate did not block an IVF bill, the senate blocked a ridiculous show vote bill that had no chance of surviving".
Above all, the pressing issue at hand is IVF - an ethical and human procedure routinely done and normalized, that extends the gift of fertility to those who may have their own respective issues - is under attack and not a viable alternative to fertility trouble in all states anymore. This decision begs into question, under a conservative or Trump Presidency, will other fertility or sexual health resources fall under attack as well? Could these attacks possibly extend to other modern medical treatments to treat people or give people opportunities?
IVF's recent controversy leaves voters alike with one burning question, what could be attacked next?
3 comments:
As Donald Trump has made abundantly clear through his actions, and his advisors have made clear in plans for his presidency under Project 2025, he is against many individual healthcare rights. He supported the infamous overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, has spoken out against IVF and other forms of birth control (disregarding later statements backpedaling these claims, given Trump's record and general attitude towards women). Furthermore, he, along with many other republicans, are against other health rights issues, such as transgender medications and surgeries, as well as the Affordable Care Act. Of course, the list goes on with groups having their rights attacked under a Trump presidency.
While the failure of this specific bill raises various issues, the primary problem that arises from these attacks is where would Trump and his potential future administration draw the line? While passing bills to obtain new rights in America is notoriously difficult, is that same threshold matched when repealing the people's rights?
When I hear about stuff like this, it always seems like more of an us vs them mentality, not that one side thinks that IVF isn’t an important medical procedure but more so that the other side wants to pass legislation for healthcare, this makes our side look worse for not. So they develop this stance, often rooted in elitism to justify opposing it. We should not be debating whether or not healthcare procedures should be state or federal issues. Americans should have access to safe public healthcare. Republican Senate Leader Chuck Schumer explains how on one hand, Republicans like to preach family values while on the other voting against healthcare that allows people who can’t give birth to start a family. How is that reflecting family values? Many republicans aren’t necessarily against the concept of IVF so it seems like a no brainer to allow people to practice it safely. As Leah mentioned, since the overturning Roe V. Wade and the idea that they want to let the states decide on IVF again just seems like an unbalanced power structure. Why is it easier to remove law than it is to bring up new ones? And why are playing it safe only trying to pass stuff that will get more votes come november? Since we live in a representative democracy, those we vote for are the ones who decide these higher decisions. They should not be able to take away the rights of American citizens easier than they give rights to the American people.
While IVF is a crucial medical procedure that helps families overcome fertility challenges, its opposition is largely based on the moral stance that embryos are equivalent to human life, which complicates the debate. It's disheartening that the act failed to gain enough support in the Senate, especially considering how deeply IVF impacts those who rely on it. This could mark the beginning of a wider trend, where access to other essential reproductive and sexual health services, like contraception or even abortion alternatives, may face increased legal challenges. The Republican opposition, which seems to stem from a mix of ethical concerns and political strategy, contradicts recent statements by figures like Donald Trump, who has voiced support for IVF. This also highlights a deeper issue: are certain medical procedures becoming politicized to the point where their ethical merit is overshadowed by party agendas?
Post a Comment