Will Alabama’s IVF ruling have ripple effects? A look at what it does – and doesn’t – do.

A national conversation about the full spectrum of issues around defining when “life” begins is underway at kitchen tables and workplaces alike, forged by weeks of legislative and judicial upheaval in Alabama and beyond.

It began when Alabama’s state Supreme Court last month declared human embryos located outside a woman’s body to be children – a reference to those created through in vitro fertilization, or IVF. Some clinics halted IVF treatments completely, fearing prosecution. State legislators responded with a quickly passed law to safeguard IVF providers. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed it right away. 

The drumbeat has continued: Kamala Harris visited an abortion clinic last week – the first vice president to do so; religious conservatives are asking House Republicans to clarify their views on when life begins; and Democrats in Alabama are pushing state legislation to protect contraception. 

The case has also made it into the presidential race, with President Joe Biden linking the Alabama decision to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling two summers ago giving states jurisdiction over abortion access. And former President Donald Trump said on the campaign trail that he supports IVF, while his record on broader reproductive rights reflects the goals of anti-abortion conservatives.

A national conversation about the full spectrum of issues around defining when “life” begins is underway at kitchen tables and workplaces alike, forged by weeks of legislative and judicial upheaval in Alabama and beyond.

It began last month when Alabama’s state Supreme Court declared human embryos located outside a woman’s body to be children – a reference to those created through in vitro fertilization, or IVF. Some clinics halted IVF treatments completely, fearing prosecution. Health care providers and fertility patients voiced frustration and panic. 

State legislators responded three weeks later with a quickly passed law to safeguard IVF providers. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed it right away, “so that couples in Alabama hoping and praying to be parents can grow their families through IVF.” 

The national attention hasn’t faded: Kamala Harris visited an abortion clinic last week – the first vice president to do so; religious conservatives are asking House Republicans to clarify their views on when life begins; and Democrats in Alabama are pushing state legislation to protect contraception. 

Despite efforts to calm heightened, and often partisan, rhetoric, confusion over the future of IVF lingers. The new Alabama law gives legal immunity to IVF providers for the destruction of embryos without addressing the core issue of what is referred to as “fetal personhood.” Experts question whether the new law will hold up under the court ruling. They also point to broader social and ethical implications. 

“There are as many understandings of the status of when life begins, or what is a human life, as there are people,” says Joanne Rosen, an expert on law and reproductive policy at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “The Alabama case decides as if this were definitive and as if there were only a singular view.”

What was important about the state Supreme Court ruling?

The Alabama Supreme Court ruling took the personhood concept to a new level. For the first time, a state court assigned rights to an embryo outside the womb. Other states recognize unborn children as people, but those have been limited to fetuses in utero, or inside a woman’s body.