On Wed. a group of bipartisan lawmakers moved to protect Invitro Fertilization (IVF) procedures in South Carolina following a recent ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court.
According to the Associated Press, the Alabama decision was issued in a pair of wrongful death cases that were brought by three couples who had frozen embryos destroyed in an accident at a fertility clinic.
In determining the ruling, the Alabama Justices cited anti-abortion language that ruled an 1872 law allowing parents to sue over the death of a minor child “applies to all unborn children, regardless of their location.”
“Unborn children are ‘children’ ... without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics,” Justice Jay Mitchell wrote in the majority ruling by the all-Republican court.
Researchers from the Mayo Clinic said IVF is a complex series of procedures that can lead to a pregnancy. It's a treatment for infertility, a condition in which you can't get pregnant after at least a year of trying for most couples.
Dr. Edward D. N. Tarnawa, a fertility specialist who is a partner with the Piedmont Reproductive Endocrinology Group, says it's a strong option for couples.
“IVF is the most efficient and effective, and I can make a good argument for safest treatment option that there is for those with infertility and creating barriers for patients who need it to access,” Tarnawa said.
Rep. Kambrell Garvin, D-Richland, introduced the bill to the state House of Representatives declaring any fertilized human egg or human embryo that exists in any form outside of the uterus is not considered a fetus or child.
“I know many families are worried as a result of the Alabama court ruling, so I filed this legislation to add clarity to South Carolina state law and protect access to IVF procedures," said Garvin. "This is personal for me because my family would not have been able to expand but for IVF."
The South Carolina House bill, H. 5157 reads:
Any fertilized human egg or human embryo that exists in any form outside of the uterus of a human body shall not, under any circumstance, be considered an unborn child, a minor child, an unborn person, an unborn fetus, a natural person, or any other term that connotes a human being for any purpose under state law.
During a Thurs. press conference held by the South Carolina Democratic Caucus, Sen. Penry Gustafson, R-Kershaw, said the issue went beyond party lines.
“Protecting IVF treatments has nothing to do with politics, its not a Republican or Democratic issue," Kershaw said. "We’re talking about embryos outside the mother’s womb. It’s unfortunate we need to go there, this is a preventative measure to avoid closings of preventative centers.”
In the state Senate, legislation was introduced on Wed. that adds language declaring it state policy to “protect and promote equitable access to the full range of assistive reproductive technologies,” including “in vitro fertilization, egg, embryo, or sperm cryopreservation, egg or embryo donation, and gestational surrogacy.”
The Senate version of the bill would protect reproductive technologies that stipulate fertility clinics are not required to preserve eggs, embryos, or sperm outside of the human body.
Gov. Henry McMaster told the press on Thursday that he had not yet read the bills or the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision.
“But I think anything to allow and protect the ability of parents, people who want to be parents, have beautiful babies is a good thing,” said McMaster.
At this time, it is still not clear how much motion the bills will get, but Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, stated he is not worried about IVF protections in the state because the laws are not the same.
“It’s just a different scenario, what played out in Alabama can’t play out in South Carolina,” Massey told reporters on Feb. 28.
The difference between Alabama’s law and South Carolina’s law is that in Alabama, conception is part of the justification for the ruling, whereas South Carolina bans abortion when a fetal heartbeat can be detected.
