Along Party Lines: The Political Side of IVF
On July 21, 2022, every single Michigan House Republican running for re-election “voted against a bill that would protect Michiganders’ ability to access contraceptives and contraception, and protect health care providers’ ability to provide them.”
The vote follows the Supreme Court’s June decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022. Since then, the Michigan Republican party has acted swiftly; just days before voting on the contraceptives bill, 157 House Republicans voted against a law to protect marriage equality, and nearly the entire party voted against bills to “to protect Americans’ right to make their own health care decisions and to prevent states from punishing women who cross state lines to seek access to health care.”
Michigan Democratic Party Chair Lavora Barnes commented on the contraception bill, “...today, they’ve laid out their vision for a dystopian future where Michiganders won’t be able to access contraceptives. It’s clear that Democrats are the only Party interested in securing Michiganders’ freedom while Republicans plan to take us back decades.”
In addition to bringing up countless questions about government involvement in personal healthcare, restricting women’s access to contraception represents a threat to IVF; birth control is often the first step of IVF. According to Medical News Today, “With IVF, timing is essential. Starting IVF medications and procedures at the right time can improve the likelihood of successful treatment. This is why a reproductive endocrinologist may suggest using birth control pills (BCPs) before IVF. These medications can help prevent potential pregnancy complications and allow doctors to control the timing of ovulation to schedule treatment.”
Restricting access to birth control, then, poses a major threat to fertility treatments that depend on regulating hormones in this way. The procedure has also been called into question as IVF often requires a selective reduction of embryos in order to ensure success or a safe outcome. Some experts do not think that abortion bans would affect IVF in this way. But in some states, they raise the question of whether destroying embryos would be considered homicide under “personhood” laws, laws that extend the legal rights of people to a fetus or embryo before viability.
Heidi Smith shared her own IVF story with Michigan-based queer media outlet PrideSource. Smith had polycystic ovarian syndrome affecting her fertility and required three rounds of IVF before getting a positive pregnancy test. However, Smith’s doctors feared she may be carrying multiples, and when they were able to look, they saw there were indeed five babies in her womb.
They advised her the pregnancy was extremely risky, recommending she not carry it to term. Smith made the difficult decision to reduce to twins, both of which she ultimately lost due to complications.
She commented, “When you see people say that people don’t value life, like, I totally value life. I’ve seen it before my eyes. I’ve seen the different stages and the fragility. And I’ve watched my daughter fight for her life outside my body. But I just don’t think it’s fair, the situation that we’re in, because nobody would choose to go through painful things.”
One Michigan representative in particular has begun to advocate for IVF in the wake of the changing laws. Rep. Samantha Steckloff was diagnosed with cancer in 2015, and since then, has herself experienced the complexities of Michigan fertility law. She recalled speaking with a Republican representative’s chief of staff about their IVF experience, noting that Right to Life and the Catholic Conference came up, two organizations that lobby against surrogacy in Michigan, largely because of their concern with embryos. Though “personhood” is not currently part of Michigan law, the doctrine still carries implications for IVF care.
Additionally, Michigan’s 1931 abortion ban, which can currently be enforced on a county level according to an early August appeals court ruling, could have dire consequences for IVF. National Public Radio’s All Things Considered examined the issue in a July episode, reporting the law “could have those in IVF clinics facing criminal charges if they discard embryos.”
Because the ban leaves room for interpretation, it could also severely impact accessibility of treatment even if IVF remains viable; Michigan State University ethicist Sean Valles commented, “...both the ability to grow a family or to delay growing a family, those will both become more and more the prerogative of people who have money and connections and racial privilege.”
The Washington Post elaborated on this idea, explaining, “... new regulations may inadvertently limit such common IVF practices and procedures such as testing embryos for genetic abnormalities before transfer, making assisted reproduction more difficult and expensive.” They added, then, “while total bans are unlikely, hastily prepared legislation and vague language could have unintended consequences for fertility treatments and related technologies.”
At the same time, the article found that most Americans don’t object to IVF. In fact, they noted, “Using 2013 Pew Research Center data, less than 20 percent of respondents who view abortion as morally wrong also describe IVF in these terms.” Instead, “a substantial majority of Americans agree IVF can “be a big help” to people trying to get pregnant, while nearly half support requirements for insurance plans to cover the high costs of IVF.”
While IVF remains a largely nonpartisan issue among constituents, then, one cannot overlook the stark partisan divide in the Michigan legislature on votes that directly impact the future of IVF. As the political landscape of reproductive care continues to rapidly evolve post-Roe, Michigan voters should take note of the additional rights at stake come the elections this November.
—Sabrina Nash, 2022 student advocate