U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) recently moved for a unanimous consent vote for the Access to Family Formation Act. This bill would make in vitro fertilization and other assisted reproductive technologies a statutory right.
IVF has been the focus of political conflict in recent weeks, primarily because false claims Regarding recent Alabama Supreme Court decisions. Duckworth had hoped to use the news to push for a unanimous consent vote on his bill, which, if approved, would allow the bill to become law without going through the normal vetting process. It could have been done sooner. Thankfully, Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi) blocked Duckworth’s motion.
It is never a good idea to allow temporary political pressure to lead to permanent policy mistakes.
The Family Formation Access Act may seem like a good idea to Republicans who want to protect IVF, but it’s not. In fact, this bill is perhaps the most counterproductive option on the table.
Some Republicans, like Hyde-Smith, acknowledge that IVF is legal, but also recognize the value of sensible regulation.
“I support full access to IVF for mothers and fathers to bring new life into the world,” Hyde-Smith said at the Feb. 28 hearing. “I also believe that human life should be protected. These are not mutually exclusive.” Hyde-Smith argued that the Family Formation Access Act fails to account for both.
Duckworth’s bill uses the pretext of protecting access as a smokescreen to enable an unregulated IVF industry.
If passed, AFBA will Any Legal rights of adults to use and create children Any Reproductive technologies such as cloning and gene editing made possible by CRISPR. (An unpopular treatment with voters.) In effect, this bill is a “pre-emptive strike.”[s] Any state effort to restrict such access means that states are powerless to enact common-sense regulations regarding IVF that prevent ethical abuse. For example, Duckworth’s bill would jeopardize embryo protection laws in Colorado and Louisiana that prohibit anonymous gamete donation.
Additionally, this law expressly repeals the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Without this protection, employers, including religious organizations and churches, could be required to provide IVF coverage against their employees’ beliefs. This will almost certainly be challenged in court, but if passed, the AFBA would be the first to be exempted from the bipartisan religious freedom law introduced by then-Rep. Chuck Schumer (D.N.Y.). Becomes federal law.
Duckworth’s law provides one vague caveat against the unrestricted use of IVF. The “Objectives” section of the bill states that the only permissible restrictions on IVF are those “imposed on medically equivalent procedures.” However, it is unclear what specific steps the bill’s authors have in mind. In fact, most medical procedures, whether related to reproductive health or not, are far more regulated than IVF.
The Family Formation Access Act is essentially a renamed version of last year’s failed Family Formation Rights Act. in her presentation Duckworth argued that the bill would give adults the legal right to “create” children through in vitro fertilization. “The choice to start a family is a fundamental right for all Americans,” she said.
Most Republicans and some Democrats rejected the Family Formation Rights Act, which included the offensive language of “building children.” The Family Formation Access Act shifts the rhetorical game from “fundamental rights” to “statutory rights.” access” In vitro fertilization. Her language may have softened, but her intent remains the same.
Some Republicans looking to show support for IVF may want to consider Duckworth’s bill. They should think twice. It is never a good idea to allow temporary political pressure to lead to permanent policy mistakes.
It is possible to support IVF and other fertility treatments without rejecting all restrictions on how they are used and by whom. Republicans should stick to their pledge to hold fertility clinics accountable for providing the best care for unborn children entrusted to them by their parents.
