Students are grappling with a recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling as it could have significant implications for the state’s in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures.
The court found that frozen embryos are the legal equivalent of children under state law, a decision reached in response to cases involving three couples whose embryos were destroyed in an accident at a storage facility. This ruling has already impacted IVF in the state, according to the Associated Press.
The court’s ruling stemmed from a peculiar incident at a fertility clinic in Mobile, Alabama, where frozen embryos were mishandled due to inadequate security measures at the fertility and IVF location, according to the Associated Press. By allowing the families to sue for wrongful death, the court set a precedent that raises questions about the future of reproductive rights and legal responsibilities in the realm of assisted reproduction.
This ruling could have larger impacts if it sparks new federal legislation.
“For students and faculty at USC, the contentious debate of women’s reproductive autonomy still rages on,” Sophia Gruskin, director of the USC Institute on Inequalities in Global Health, said.
Even if the potential implications are not immediately known, students across the USC campus remained steadfast in their support of those who could be impacted.
“I don’t personally agree with it, " Christopher Chen, a sophomore studying computer science, said. “I think even if we do not necessarily know anyone that might be affected by this change, it’s important that we always try to understand people who might be and try to garner a sense of empathy for people that again might be affected by this.”
And while some remained focused on the potential human impact, others highlighted the potential political implications of the ruling.
“I think it’s just like an ongoing tactic by the Republican Party to try and shred away different aspects of reproductive rights,” Nivea Krishnan, a senior double majoring in public policy and economics, said. “Looking at some of the implications of it, it hurts people’s ability to have a baby through IVF, which impacts people that can’t have kids for various reasons, so I think in that way, there’s a lot of scary legal implications for doctors too.”
Those potential legal dangers for doctors, Krishnan said, could make them less willing to perform the procedure.
“Doctors are afraid they’re gonna face legal consequences if something goes wrong, because the embryo is considered a child, so I think that is making the whole procedure less accessible,” Krishnan said.
For Krishnan, the ruling is the logical continuation of the push from some to define life as beginning at the point of conception.
“I’m not the most well-versed in reproductive law and everything, but I think it’s definitely part of the larger narrative that life begins at conception and driving home that narrative, which I personally stand on not that side of the aisle,” Krishnan said. “So I think it definitely is a knock on reproductive access to reproduction, just in general.”
And while the many impacts of the ruling have still not been fully realized, some are concerned that the court ruling that an embryo being granted the legal status of a child could have impacts far beyond IVF.
“Considering an embryo as a human will only have negative impacts on specifically low income women and girls who don’t have access to abortion,” Lisa Soorenian, assistant professor of the Practice of Environmental Studies, said.