Alabama’s governor, Kay Ivey, has signed into law new legislation that will shield IVF providers from the fallout of a court ruling that equated frozen embryos with children.
The new law protects providers from lawsuits and criminal prosecution in the event of “damage or death of an embryo” during IVF services.
“I am pleased to sign this important, short-term measure into law so that couples in Alabama hoping and praying to be parents can grow their families through IVF,” said Ivey, a Republican.
The state’s supreme court ruled last month that three couples who had frozen embryos destroyed in an accident at a storage facility could pursue wrongful death lawsuits.
As a result, the state’s three major IVF providers paused services, as patients in Alabama reported that upcoming embryo transfers had been abruptly cancelled and their paths to parenthood put in doubt.
Republicans in the state legislature proposed the immunity bill as a way to get clinics reopened, but have refused to take up a bill that would address the legal status of embryos.
Last week, House Democrats proposed legislation stating that a human embryo outside a uterus could not be considered an unborn child or human being under state law. They argued that this change in law would be the most direct way to deal with the issue, however Republicans have not brought the proposal up for a vote.
Tim Melson, a Republican senator and the bill’s sponsor, said he was “just elated to get these ladies back on schedule”.
Doctors from Alabama Fertility, one of the clinics that had paused IVF services, said the bill would allow them to resume embryo transfers “starting tomorrow”.
“We have some transfers tomorrow and some Friday. This means that we will be able to do embryo transfers and hopefully have more pregnancies and babies in the state of Alabama,” Dr Mamie McLean said after the vote.
Melson, who is a doctor, said lawmakers may have to come back with additional legislation but said it should be based on “science not feelings”.
“I think there is too much difference of opinion on when actual life begins. A lot of people say conception. A lot of people say implantation. Others say heartbeat. I wish I had the answer,” said Melson.
The bill signed into law on Wednesday states that “no action, suit, or criminal prosecution for the damage to or death of an embryo shall be brought or maintained against any individual or entity when providing or receiving services related to in vitro fertilisation”.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, a group representing IVF providers across the US, said the legislation did not go far enough. Sean Tipton, a spokesperson for the organisation, said the legislation did not correct the fundamental problem, which he said was “conflating fertilised eggs with children” as the court ruling had done.
Republicans are trying to navigate tricky political waters – torn between widespread popularity and support for IVF, and conflicts within their own party.
Republican senator Larry Stutts, an obstetrician and gynaecologist who voted against the bill, called it an “IVF provider and supplier protection bill” that did not protect patients or their embryos.
“It is actually limiting the ability of mothers who are involved in IVF to have recourse and it is placing a dollar value on human life,” Stutts said.
During debate in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, Chris England, a Democrat from Tuscaloosa, said lawmakers were attempting to play “lawsuit whack-a-mole” instead of confronting the real issue.
“The real solution to this is determining the definition of a child and having a real conversation about the implications of some of the decisions we’ve made,” England said.
