Dobbs’s dilemma: Abortion and IVF are two sides of the same coin

Four years ago, when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the justices were focused on overturning the constitutional right to an abortion and nearly 50 years of precedent.

The reach of the opinion’s attack on reproductive justice, however, extends far beyond abortion. One of the most visible areas is in vitro fertilization, a process through which almost 3 percent of babies are born each year.

The public strongly supports access to in vitro fertilization. So important is the procedure that, during his campaign, President Trump declared he would mandate payment for “all costs associated with IVF treatment, fertilization for women.” And in May, while anointing himself the “father of IVF,” Trump unveiled his administration’s rule making it easier for employers to cover fertility care.  

But it turns out that treating IVF and abortion differently is not that easy, because they are actually two sides of the same issue. Each procedure allows people to make decisions about creating a family. Moreover, IVF, like abortion, involves control over prenatal life. 

With costs between $15,000-20,000 a cycle, in vitro typically involves the creation of excess embryos to increase its efficiency and reduce costs. Prospective parents have typically been able to exercise control over their excess embryos, deciding whether to discard, donate or save them for future cycles. To date, there are estimates of more than 1 million frozen embryos in the U.S. 

In vitro production of excess embryos is a problem in states that ban abortion as a means of protecting unborn children. Indeed, Dobbs declared that states could........

© The Hill