Among them: will in vitro fertilization (IVF) and similar assisted reproductive technologies like surrogacy and donor assisted conception remain legal and ...
So I think the general challenge to the rights of same-sex couples and LGBTQ+ persons that Justice Thomas’s concurrence poses indicates some real questions about surrogacy going forward. The people who created those embryos are then in this weird position where they either have to donate them and have them implanted in other people to yield a pregnancy, essentially procreating against their will, or they destroy the embryos, which often happens. In this particular case, it’s the creation of an embryo outside of the body and then implantation into the surrogate. “Selective reduction” is what they call it in assisted reproductive technology, but it is essentially an abortion—removing one of the embryos in utero so that the other embryos have a better chance of resulting in a healthy pregnancy and delivery. When you lose a pregnancy, the typical treatment is to remove the failed pregnancy from the uterus if it isn't spontaneously expelled by the body—and that is technically an abortion. The majority really didn't grapple with this at all, which was unfortunate, because obviously returning abortion to the states—where states are free to either permit abortion access or to constrain it—has real implications for ART and especially in vitro fertilization, in large part because part of the process of IVF often requires eliminating excess embryos.
The future of IVF and surrogacy are uncertain after the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, says legal scholar Melissa Murray.
So I think the general challenge to the rights of same-sex couples and LGBTQ+ persons that Justice Thomas’s concurrence poses indicates some real questions about surrogacy going forward. The people who created those embryos are then in this weird position where they either have to donate them and have them implanted in other people to yield a pregnancy, essentially procreating against their will, or they destroy the embryos, which often happens. In this particular case, it’s the creation of an embryo outside of the body and then implantation into the surrogate. “Selective reduction” is what they call it in assisted reproductive technology, but it is essentially an abortion—removing one of the embryos in utero so that the other embryos have a better chance of resulting in a healthy pregnancy and delivery. When you lose a pregnancy, the typical treatment is to remove the failed pregnancy from the uterus if it isn’t spontaneously expelled by the body—and that is technically an abortion. The majority really didn’t grapple with this at all, which was unfortunate, because obviously returning abortion to the states—where states are free to either permit abortion access or to constrain it—has real implications for ART and especially in vitro fertilization, in large part because part of the process of IVF often requires eliminating excess embryos.
State Republicans' fetal personhood bills are so vaguely written, doctors and patients are worried they could interrupt family planning and fertility ...
[Pure Chaos](https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2022/09/is-tiktok-turning-fashion-week-into-pure-chaos?itm_content=footer-recirc&itm_campaign=more-great-stories-091422)? “From the moment of fertilization that zygote, embryo, or whichever depersonalizing term you choose to use is not merely a potential human but rather human with potential.” Similar “personhood” legislation has been proposed in [Georgia](https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/1081731), [Iowa](https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=89&ba=HF267), [Oklahoma](http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22%20INT/hres/HJR1027%20INT.PDF), [Nebraska](https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/107/PDF/Intro/LB933.pdf), and [South Carolina](https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/1250710). [detailed a back-and-forth](https://jessica.substack.com/p/we-just-want-to-be-parents) she said she had with her state representative, Ryan Williams, who [signed](https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB1029&GA=111) Tennessee’s abortion ban—one of the most stringent in the country to date—and informed her that “life does begin at conception either in the womb or in the IVF clinic,” and that discarding embryos would be a violation of state law, according to a screenshot of an email shown in the TikTok. [bill](https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_134/bills/hb704/IN/00/hb704_00_IN?format=pdf) that would recognize “personhood” at the moment of conception—which would impact common IVF practices. “It was written in such a way that it’s been interpreted as: everything we do in our world—fertilizing eggs outside the body, for various reasons—happens before [implantation] and so for us, it’s been more or less business as usual.” “The Personhood Act affirms what our founders declared, and science has discovered: A person is a person from the moment a new human being is created,” Click wrote [in a statement](https://ohiohouse.gov/members/gary-click/news/click-introduces-legislation-to-declare-personhood-from-the-moment-of-conception-111031) announcing the bill. “I do think that as people understand better what IVF does—even people who are engaged in the process of IVF sometimes don’t understand the implications of it—that we will turn away from this creation and freezing of hundreds of thousands of distinct individual human beings who remain in limbo forever or are ultimately cast off as if the trash,” he said. “I admit it is an unusual question for someone who struggled to have children and wants children to ask the question ‘can I discard my embryos’ but I hope this answers your questions,” he added vaguely, likely because the Tennessee law does not clearly encompass IVF. In regards to IVF, you know, the concern is if they use the word fertilization versus if they are using the word conception.” “This is the whole point of the movement.” “What term are they using, and do they even know what the term means? “Everyone that is following this battle definitely thinks personhood is the ultimate goal—defining fetal personhood at conception seems to be the goal,” Seema Mohapatra, a health and ethics professor at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law, said.