Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-IL, proposed a federal bill that would create a “right to access in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and other assisted reproductive technology (ART).”
Duckworth and her congressional co-sponsors announced the bill in mid-January, one month before the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen human embryos created via IVF are children with human rights under state law.
A January 18 press release from the senator’s office stated:
As Republicans and the anti-abortion movement continue their state-by-state attacks on reproductive healthcare in post-Roe America, [Duckworth], [Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA], as well as [Rep. Susan Wild, D-PA] are introducing new legislation to protect every American’s right to access [IVF]
Duckworth’s office characterized IVF and ART as “services that millions of Americans need to have children.”
“[T]his new legislation would establish a statutory right to access IVF and other ART services, thereby pre-empting any state effort to limit such access and ensuring no hopeful parent—or their doctors—are punished for trying to start or grow a family,” the release continued.
Following the Alabama ruling, Duckworth has doubled down on her proposed bill, which she said Sunday had yet to receive support from any Republicans.
“Republicans have put the rights of a fertilized egg over the rights of the woman,” the senator said during an ABC appearance that day.
Duckworth is a national co-chair of President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign this year. She is not up for re-election in the Senate until 2028.
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
Critics of IVF have blasted Duckworth’s bill, explaining that it would enable the so-called “fertility industry” to run amok.
CatholicVote Director of Governmental Affairs Tom McClusky said Duckworth’s bill “would promote the dark side of science, allowing for human cloning and letting the IVF industry wantonly destroy human embryos with no repercussions.”
“It is the very definition of extreme,” McClusky emphasized.
The Heritage Foundation’s Emma Waters similarly called the bill “radical,” noting that it would “unleash IVF and commercial surrogacy.”
“[T]he bill would overrule state laws that regulate or protect embryos used in IVF and commercial surrogacy,” Waters wrote in The Daily Signal last month:
There’s no such thing as a “fundamental right” to a child per se, and it certainly can’t be invoked to trump the basic rights of others. A child, whose life begins at conception, is not a mere object to design, buy, or sell to fulfill an adult’s wishes.
Duckworth’s statement (and her own use of IVF) reflect the natural desire for offspring. That desire, however, does not justify creating children by any means necessary.
“Since its inception, the fertility industry has been the Wild West of modern medicine,” Waters went on.
She pointed out that there exist “few federal guidelines on the use of embryos” and none that “[address] commercial surrogacy.”
“Instead, IVF and surrogacy laws tend to vary from state to state,” she explained:
The use of embryos in IVF and commercial surrogacy touches the most intimate parts of a person’s life; namely, their deep longing for—and the uncertainty of—children.
Good law—and conscientious lawmakers—must take that emotional vulnerability into account.
LifeNews Note: Joshua Mercer writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.
