The Alabama House and Senate both passed bills this week that would help people resume in vitro fertilization and provide legal protections for providers and patients in certain cases.

Senate Bill 159 and its companion House Bill 237 passed swiftly despite debates surrounding immunity and personhood.

While this is a positive step that allows families to resume treatments, said Heidi Miller, development manager for the reproductive-justice group Yellowhammer Fund, they're still concerned with the limited timeframe offered by the bills, including the one sponsored by Sen. Tim Melson, R-Florence.

"So, it just feels like a very limited solution to me, and that's our stance as an org, is that it feels like very much like a Band-Aid on open wounds," she said. "And so, that's how we've kind of been looking at those bills, because Sen. Melson's bill similarly would be repealed on April 1, 2025."

Both bills would apply retroactively and be automatically repealed next year, which Miller said could affect families again. This comes after IVF programs around the state stopped offering the service over concerns about legal consequences following a 8-1 state Supreme Court ruling. The court ruled that frozen embryos are protected by the state's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act that protects children, regardless of location.

Acknowledging the temporary nature of the bills, Miller argued that a short-term solution is insufficient for people seeking IVF treatments, which sometimes can take months or years. She said they're urging lawmakers to take further action to safeguard the accessibility of IVF.

"For us to get the constitutional amendment - the, quote, 'sanctity of life' constitutional amendment from 2018 - back for a re-vote in front of Alabama voters," she said, "because that would be the long-term solution that would really protect IVF access."

Unless the constitutional amendment is repealed, she said, it could supersede any other law or code, specifically where the term 'child' or 'minor child' is not defined. Miller said the Yellowhammer Fund has resources on its website for people who want to know more.

House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels, D-Huntsville, is sponsoring two measures, including a constitutional amendment, to clarify that an extrauterine embryo should not be considered an "unborn life" or "unborn child."


get more stories like this via email

A bill to bolster protections for in vitro fertilization treatments failed in the U.S. Senate Tuesday and as the political debate plays out, a Minnesota mother hopes her experience opens more eyes to the challenges some people face in expanding their families.

For the second time this year, Senate Republicans blocked efforts to put in place a nationwide right to IVF. The outcome is likely to get more attention on the campaign trail this fall.

Miraya Gran, an infertility advocate and IVF mom from Bloomington, said she and her husband were both diagnosed with infertility. They are now proud parents of a daughter through IVF but there were many hoops to jump through.

"Infertility is a disease and like any other disease, it is emotionally and physically exhausting," Gran pointed out. "When your disease is not covered by insurance, there's a financial component added on top of it, which is equally exhausting."

She noted the couple underwent many tests, took out a second mortgage and relied on crowdfunding to pay for the IVF. Gran is now an advocate of guaranteed health coverage for IVF treatments in Minnesota.

In Congress, Senate Republicans said they support IVF but accused Democrats of a "political stunt" by bringing it to a vote. Democrats contended the outcome aligns with conservative ideals in curtailing reproductive freedoms.

The issue received renewed focus when Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump expressed his support for IVF, even though some of his voter base objects because of religious beliefs.

Gran acknowledged people have their right to their opinions about an issue but those beliefs should not come at the expense of access to reproductive care.

"It's isolating," Gran explained. "Our society has created a taboo around it for so long."

Although the U.S. Senate vote failed, Gran noted it is encouraging to see policymakers debate the topic openly. Minnesota Gov. and Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz has frequently called for expanded access to IVF, citing his family's struggle with infertility. A Minnesota bill stalled earlier this year amid debate over costs. It is expected to see another push in 2025.


get more stories like this via email

Abortion care restrictions in North Dakota are expected to be lifted in the near future, following a court ruling on Thursday.

A state judge said North Dakota's ban on the procedure violates the state Constitution. It's been part of a wave of abortion laws stemming from the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Dobbs case.

Prior to this week's decision, the state's lone abortion provider moved its clinic just across the border to Minnesota.

Dr. Ana Tobiasz, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Bismarck, said physicians in hospital settings had been weighed down by uncertainties about what to do in cases of medical exceptions under the law.

"We have been made to choose between saving a patient's life and possibly facing jail time," Tobiasz explained.

Tobiasz, a plaintiff in the case, said while there are no more abortion clinics in North Dakota, hospitals can at least step in during pregnancy complications without legal ramifications. Advocates said some procedural steps are needed before the ruling goes into effect. North Dakota's attorney general criticized the opinion, vowing to file an appeal.

Groups behind the legal challenge to North Dakota's ban say while Thursday's outcome provides hope, it would be hard to quickly build up a system of abortion care within state boundaries.

Meetra Mehdizadeh, staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in the meantime, women around the state at least have some peace of mind about their reproductive care needs.

"The court has reaffirmed the fundamental right to make personal and private health care decisions without interference from the government," Mehdizadeh asserted.

The Republican-led Legislature reconvenes early next year, and depending on what happens with the expected appeal, the plaintiffs have urged lawmakers to let this week's decision stand. The group North Dakota Right to Life said the judge in this case unilaterally issued a ruling which, in their words, "dismantles critical protections for the unborn and vulnerable women across our state."


get more stories like this via email

In an unusual set of circumstances, the Nebraska Supreme Court will hear arguments in three lawsuits about the two abortion-related ballot initiatives, each of which had successful petition drives for the November ballot.

The first two lawsuits ask the Nebraska Supreme Court to rule to keep "Protect our Rights," which would legalize abortions until fetal viability, off the ballot. They claim it violates the state's "single subject" rule.

The third suit was filed in response to these on behalf of 29 Nebraska physicians who support Protect Our Rights.

Joshua Livingston, an attorney at the Koenig Dunne law firm in Omaha, which filed the lawsuit, said there are two types of access at stake.

"These physicians spend their days working with Nebraska patients, and they understand what Nebraskans need and what Nebraskans are asking for," Livingston explained. "Over 200,000 Nebraskans signed this petition asking for their voices to be heard. So the goal is access to health care and access to the ballot."

Livingston maintained the only fair outcome would require both initiatives to remain on the ballot or both to be removed. The "Protect Women and Children" initiative would prohibit abortions after the first trimester. The Nebraska legislature passed a 12-week abortion ban in 2023.

Livingston noted their position is that the "single-subject" rule would allow both initiatives to remain on the ballot.

"What we're really seeing is that the opponents to Protect Our Rights, the activist opponents, are scared of what the outcome is going to be," Livingston contended. "They're scared that if Nebraskans have the opportunity to expand abortion health care, they're going to vote in favor of that."

Livingston stressed Nebraska voters' right to be heard is really what is at stake here. He added they hope the Nebraska Supreme Court will rule before the Sept. 13 deadline for Nebraska ballots to be finalized.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, voters in six states have passed constitutional amendments to protect abortion rights.


get more stories like this via email