In Vitro Fertilization

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares179 Views

    Trump Says He’ll Vote Against Florida’s Abortion Rights Measure After Conservative Backlash

    by

    Former President Donald J. Trump said on Friday that he would vote against a ballot measure in Florida that would expand abortion access in the state, clarifying his stance after having suggested a day earlier that he might support the measure.“I’ll be voting no,” Mr. Trump told Fox News, even as he said he disagreed with his home state’s current ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.Passage of the ballot measure, called Amendment 4, would allow patients to seek an abortion up to about 24 weeks of pregnancy.In an interview with NBC News on Thursday, Mr. Trump, who had long avoided taking a firm position on the measure, said he was “going to be voting that we need more than six weeks.” His campaign promptly sought to clean up those remarks, saying in a statement that they were not indicative of how he would vote in November.His comments were also met with backlash from social conservatives and abortion opponents. Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, a leading anti-abortion group, said Mr. Trump would be undermining a long-held opposition to abortions after five months of pregnancy if he voted for the measure.“We strongly support Florida’s current heartbeat law,” Ms. Dannenfelser said in a statement, adding that she had also spoken privately with the former president. “For anyone who believes in drawing a different line, they still must vote against Amendment 4, unless they don’t want a line at all.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump propuso que la fertilización in vitro fuera gratuita. ¿Es posible?

      by

      Conseguir que se cubran los costosos tratamientos de fertilidad sería algo que no puede hacer un presidente solo, dijeron los expertos en políticas de salud.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]El expresidente Donald Trump dijo el jueves en campaña que quiere que el tratamiento de fertilización in vitro (FIV) sea gratuito para todos los estadounidenses.“Bajo un gobierno de Trump, tu gobierno pagará o tu compañía de seguros estará obligada a pagar todos los costos asociados con el tratamiento de fertilización in vitro”, dijo Trump el jueves en un mitin en Potterville, Míchigan.La fecundación in vitro suele costar decenas de miles de dólares. Las políticas para cubrir esos costos serían difíciles de implementar, dijeron los expertos.Exigir a las aseguradoras que paguen estos procedimientos probablemente significaría aprobar leyes en el Congreso o persuadir a un panel de expertos para que añadan la FIV a una lista de servicios preventivos gratuitos de salud femenina establecidos por la Ley de Asistencia Asequible, la ley de cobertura de salud que Trump trató de derogar.Si el gobierno pagara directamente la FIV, se crearía un sistema de pagador único para una sola condición. El enfoque requeriría que el Congreso financie una nueva división del gobierno federal para supervisar el programa.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      How Christian Conservatives Are Planning for the Next Battle, on I.V.F.

      by

      Republicans may be backing away from abortion, but these activists have a strategy, with or without Trump.The pivot seems clear. The Republican Party of the post-Roe era is sidelining anti-abortion activists. Project 2025, the conservative blueprint with innovative abortion bans, has been disavowed by Donald Trump. And the new G.O.P. party platform even promises to advance access to in vitro fertilization.But as Mr. Trump distances himself from the anti-abortion revolution his own administration ushered in, a powerful battalion of conservative Christians has pushed ahead. In recent months, they have quietly laid the groundwork for their fight to restrict not only access to abortion but also to I.V.F.They are planting seeds for their ultimate goal of ending abortion from conception, both within the Republican Party and beyond it. They face a tough political battle since their positions are largely unpopular and do not reflect majority opinion, particularly on I.V.F.As they see it, their challenge spans generations, not simply a single political cycle. And their approach — including controlling regulatory language, state party platforms and the definition of when life begins — reflects an incremental strategy similar to the one activists used for decades to eventually overturn Roe v. Wade.“I expect there will be steps backwards as well as what we are working toward, which are long strikes forward,” said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., who has been newly mobilizing evangelicals against I.V.F.The fall of Roe itself was far from linear, he noted. “It was nearly a half century of work, a half century of frustration, a half century of setbacks as well as advances,” Mr. Mohler said. “It will be a hard uphill climb, but that’s what we are called to.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      W.N.B.A.’s Nneka Ogwumike Takes Over More Than a Vote From LeBron James

      by

      Nneka Ogwumike, a nine-time All-Star, will lead More Than a Vote, which will focus on women’s reproductive rights this election cycle.More Than a Vote, a nonprofit organization founded by LeBron James in 2020, is rebooting this fall with a new focus on women’s issues and reproductive rights.Nneka Ogwumike, a nine-time W.N.B.A. All-Star with the Seattle Storm and president of the players union, will take over James’s role in leading the organization, and has recruited a group of female athletes to her cause.“It’s more than just abortion,” Ogwumike said in an interview. “It’s all about educating people about all the different roles that exist in society that support and protect the freedoms of women when it comes to family planning, I.V.F., birth control, everything. There’s just a lot that’s at stake.”More Than a Vote was founded when, motivated by nationwide protest movements after the killing by police of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, athletes like James said they were starting to think more deeply about how they could use their platforms.The organization was focused on protecting voting access for Black voters, including collaborating with NAACP Legal Defense Fund on a multimillion-dollar initiative to recruit poll workers. It partnered with teams to open sports arenas and stadiums as polling locations and created television ads and digital content designed to encourage voting. The organization raised about $4.2 million in 2020, twice the amount it expected. However, it has been essentially dormant for the past few years.Ogwumike, who volunteered as a poll worker in 2020, began speaking with James this year. At that point, James and his associates had been discussing the prominence of discussions about reproductive rights, as well as the increased attention around women’s sports. (Vice President Kamala Harris is expected to make abortion rights a focus of her campaign against former President Donald J. Trump.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      It’s Unanimous: In the Senate, Neither Party Consents to the Other’s Ideas

      by

      Democrats sought to quickly reinstate a ban on gun bump stocks after a Supreme Court ruling. It was the latest Senate floor fight to end in a predictable stalemate.In the Senate, the term “U.C.” stands for “unanimous consent” — usually verbal shorthand for an agreement by all senators to quickly take up and pass a bill. But with the November elections just months away, it might as well stand for: “You see? Our political opponents are dead wrong on this issue.”With the focus of the political universe turning to the upcoming fight for control of Congress and the White House, lawmakers are spending most of their time not on real legislative work but in trying to corner their rivals on hot-button issues.On the Senate floor in recent days, those efforts have often taken the form of unanimous consent requests that are designed to fail, thus spotlighting one party or another’s refusal to agree to a policy proposal.Such procedural skirmishes provide a shortcut to Senate showdowns on wedge issues or subjects on which one party believes it has the upper hand. That was the case on Tuesday, when Democrats attempted to quickly bring up and pass a bill that would outlaw gun bump stocks after the Supreme Court last week struck down a ban on the devices.Like similar recent maneuvers, Democrats knew the U.C. attempt would fail because of a Republican objection, but they tried anyway in a bid to give themselves a talking point against the G.O.P.“What today’s bill does is return things to the status quo set by Donald Trump, saying bump stocks are dangerous and should be prohibited,” Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said on Tuesday. “Senate Republicans by and large supported Donald Trump’s ban on bump stocks back then, so they should support this bill today.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      One Week That Revealed the Struggles of the Anti-Abortion Movement

      by

      The movement looks for a path forward: “Is the goal the absolute abolition of abortion in our nation?”The Southern Baptist Convention voted to condemn in vitro fertilization at its annual meeting in Indianapolis this week, over the objections of some members.Conservative lawyers pushing to sharply restrict medication abortion lost a major case at the Supreme Court, after pursuing a strategy that many of their allies thought was an overreach.Former president Donald J. Trump told Republicans in a closed-door meeting to stop talking about abortion bans limiting the procedure at certain numbers of weeks. In one chaotic week, the anti-abortion movement showed how major players are pulling in various directions and struggling to find a clear path forward two years after their victory of overturning Roe v. Wade.The divisions start at the most fundamental level of whether to even keep pushing to end abortion or to move on to other areas of reproductive health, like fertility treatments. A movement that once marched nearly in lock step finds itself mired in infighting and unable to settle on a basic agenda.In some cases, hard-liners are seizing the reins, rejecting the incremental strategy that made their movement successful in overturning Roe. Other abortion opponents are backing away, sensing the political volatility of the moment.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Alabama’s I.V.F. Shield Law Now Faces a Constitutional Challenge

      by

      The challenge, from two of the families who filed the initial lawsuit, raises the possibility that access to I.V.F. could once again be in jeopardy in the state.Two Alabama families at the center of the wrongful-death lawsuit that led to the temporary suspension of in vitro fertilization procedures in the state have asked a judge to overturn a new law that shields clinics and doctors from civil and criminal liability.Their challenge to the law raises the possibility that access to I.V.F. could once again be placed in jeopardy in Alabama. And it could further inflame tensions across the country over whether to enshrine protections for I.V.F., as influential Christian conservatives look to curb the use of the popular reproductive treatment.Alabama lawmakers quickly pushed through the shield law in early March after the State Supreme Court weighed in on the lawsuit and ruled that frozen embryos could legally be considered children. The families had filed the claim over the accidental destruction of their embryos at a Mobile clinic in 2020.Multiple clinics had shuttered to avoid the threat of legal challenges, adding to the emotional, financial and physical toll of infertility for Alabama families suddenly left in medical limbo.The swift passage of the shield law led clinics to reopen and restart embryo transfers. But the law did not explicitly address the legal question of “fetal personhood” raised by the State Supreme Court opinion, and many in the Republican-dominated Legislature acknowledged they would very likely need a more permanent solution.This week, after the clinic asked for the wrongful-death lawsuit to be dismissed, the families argued that the shield law was a violation of their constitutional rights, including equal protection, due process and the Alabama Constitution’s “guarantees of life, the right to bear children and the right to a remedy for wrongful deaths of such children.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      How Baptists and the G.O.P. Took Different Paths on I.V.F.

      by

      The vote at the Southern Baptist Convention raising alarms about in vitro fertilization began with two conservatives at a seminary in Kentucky.About a month after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in February that frozen embryos were to be considered children under the law, Andrew T. Walker, an ethicist at a Southern Baptist seminary in Kentucky, called a friend with an idea: to spread Alabama’s argument beyond Alabama.The Alabama ruling, which had threatened access to in vitro fertilization and other reproductive services in the state, caught many Americans, including conservatives, off guard. The idea that fertility treatments could be morally and legally questionable rattled many anti-abortion voters who had used such procedures to expand their families. And it further frayed the increasingly tense alliance between the anti-abortion movement and the Republican Party, which saw political peril in going after I.V.F. Four months later, Dr. Walker succeeded. On Wednesday, the Southern Baptist Convention, the country’s largest Protestant denomination, voted to condemn the use of reproductive technologies like I.V.F. that end in the destruction of “frozen embryonic human beings.” The resolution passed by what appeared to be the overwhelming majority of Baptists that gathered in Indianapolis for their annual meeting. The moment was especially striking given that after the Alabama ruling earlier this year, Republican leaders quickly tried to signal to their base that they supported I.V.F., an extraordinarily popular procedure widely used by Christians and non-Christians alike.But the vote showed the power of wide-reaching theological and moral arguments about human life and reproduction, and that anti-abortion Christians in the denomination’s more than 45,000 churches, many of whose congregants have relied on I.V.F., may be open to more sweeping moves against the procedure.Dr. Walker, 39, first publicly opposed in vitro fertilization five years ago, co-writing an article titled “Breaking Evangelicalism’s Silence on IVF” for the website of the evangelical organization the Gospel Coalition, which ran a companion essay by a high-profile theologian defending the procedure.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Hospital at Center of Alabama Embryo Ruling Is Ending I.V.F. Services

      by

      The hospital cited a “lack of clarity” in recent state legislation meant to shield I.V.F. providers as a factor in its decision. A separate fertility clinic at the site said it would relocate.A Mobile, Ala., hospital at the center of a State Supreme Court ruling that found that frozen embryos could be considered children said on Wednesday that it would no longer provide in vitro fertilization lab services after this year.In an email explaining the decision, Hannah Peterson, a spokeswoman for the Infirmary Health hospital system, cited “pending litigation and the lack of clarity of the recently passed I.V.F. legislation in the state of Alabama.”It was not immediately clear what effect the decision would have on patients seeking I.V.F. treatment. The fertility clinic that leases space in the hospital and uses its lab services said it would relocate.But the announcement added a new layer to the confusion and apprehension that has hung over patients since the February court ruling, which led the Mobile clinic and others in the state to temporarily suspend I.V.F. treatments.Infirmary Health and the clinic, the Center for Reproductive Medicine, have been embroiled in legal turmoil since three couples sued them over the accidental destruction of their frozen embryos in 2020.The State Supreme Court ruling was a victory for the couples, allowing them to proceed with their wrongful-death claims with the court’s assertion that frozen embryos could legally be considered children. A second lawsuit was filed against both the hospital and the clinic in the weeks after the decision.In the wake of the ruling, Alabama lawmakers scrambled to pass legislation that would shield clinics from criminal or civil liability. The new law does not apply to any embryo-related lawsuits in progress before it was enacted, including the Mobile case.With the suits against it still to be resolved, the hospital said on Wednesday that it would no longer offer I.V.F. treatment services after Dec. 31.The Center for Reproductive Medicine said in a separate statement that it had also resumed treatment and would relocate its work to new facilities in Mobile and Daphne, Ala.The new locations, the center said, would allow it to continue a “mission of helping individuals and couples achieve their dreams of starting or expanding their families.”The hospital’s decision also underscored concerns that the new Alabama law had not gone far enough to adequately protect access to I.V.F. treatments, given that it did not address the question of whether frozen embryos should be considered children. Legal experts warned that the law might face additional constitutional challenges.Doctors, I.V.F. patients and their supporters in Alabama have begun pushing for lawmakers in Washington to codify federal protections for I.V.F. and other fertility treatments.But with a divided Congress and Republicans torn between pledges to protect life starting at conception and defend access to I.V.F., it is unlikely that legislation will move quickly. More