This week I have so many things I want to talk about ---- immigration, the war in Gaza, the Presidential election, the Supreme Court’s decision to delay Trump’s Washington, DC trial ---- but I am going to restrict myself to talking about the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that fertilized eggs in In Vitro Fertilization clinics are BABIES.
The ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court has set off shock waves in the so-called Right to Life Movement. I bet the majority of those Justices thought they were just helping a customer at a particular clinic collect damages from the clinic for the accidental destruction of embryos that they were hoping to use to create a child. However, the MAGA extremist Chief Justice, one Tom Parker, made explicit the “Christian Nationalist” ideas behind at least some of the Judges that supported that decision:
[The entire decision, including the dissent and the concurring opinion by Chief Justice Parker is available here. ]
Parker wrote: “Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself. [Alabama’s Sanctity of Life statute] recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life—that even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.”
The journalist Elie Mystal responded in the Nation with an article entitled “Alabama’s IVF Ruling Is Christian Theology Masquerading as Law.” [It is available here.]
He wrote: “The word “God” appears 41 times in Parker’s opinion, which also liberally quotes from the Bible, specifically the Book of Genesis, and theologians like Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin. In an interview, Parker said he supports the “Seven Mountain Mandate” which
is a code from imposing Christian rule based on biblical precepts on the rest of society. Folks, this is the chief justice of a state supreme court, and he is explicitly invoking fundamentalist Christian ideology to justify assigning legal liability and financial penalties to people who run afoul of Christian orthodoxy.”
It was probably about 2006 or 2007 when I read a book by the journalist Chris Hedges called American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. It argued that the Presidency of George W. Bush had opened the door to religious domination of American politics. I had of course known of the efforts of Jerry Falwell and the so-called “Moral Majority” but I had figured that the religious extremists were unlikely to prevail in our pluralistic society. There were many different religious experiences among our vast and varied population and I could not imagine the extreme right wing taking over the Christian population, let alone the entire country.
Boy was I wrong. It’s not that the extreme right-wing of Christian Nationalism comes anywhere near to a majority opinion in the United States, but they have an extremely large megaphone because they have been providing the shock troops for the right-wing policies preferred by the super-rich. It is not an accident that George W. Bush combined religious orthodoxy with economic largesse for the titans of corporate America and the billionaire class. And it is not an accident that Donald J. Trump, a religious faker who didn’t even know how to quote a Biblical passage [remember he read from “Two Corinthians”? Even a non-believer like me knows that one refers to “Second Corinthians”!] put three fundamentalists on the Supreme Court who immediately proved they had perjured themselves at their confirmation hearings by overturning Roe v. Wade. (He also pushed through an audacious tax cut that mostly benefited the billionaire class.)
[On the issue of the rise of the religious right, I just finished reading a good book tracing that process by David A. Hollinger, Christianity’s American Fate: How Religion Became More Conservative and Society More Secular, (Princeton University Press, 2022). I recommend it.]
Reading about that decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, I have to admit, I am almost beyond outrage.
However, the audacity of the decision and its unintended consequences for affluent (mostly white) people has produced a silver lining for the side of rationality and religious freedom.
Even the completely tone-deaf right-wing echo-chamber, including the fascist-in-chief Donald Trump recognized that this ruling was not going to play well with part of their potential constituency. Instead of coming down like of ton of bricks on poor women who lack the resources to go out of state for abortions, this ruling hurt well off, mostly white families, trying to use In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) to have children.
Donald Trump and the Maga Republican crowd have catered to rich, privileged (mostly white) Americans with tax cuts and reduced regulations. These are the same people who can afford IVF treatments. According to national data, 90 percent of the patients accessing IVF procedures are white. Given the extent of black poverty in Alabama, I’ll bet it’s even higher in that state. No wonder when the fertility clinics in Alabama PAUSED their IVF treatments --- even dingbat Trump called on the Alabama Legislature to pass a law exempting IVF from that prohibition.
But in attempting to carve out an exemption for IVF treatments, the so-called “right to lifers” are tying themselves up in knots. There are plenty of laws on the books and in process that say the same thing as the Alabama Court’s ruling. This produced a super-charged example of personal hypocrisy from a member of Congress. How many people have heard of the “Life At Conception Act?”
[It was introduced to the House on January 20, 2023 with 124 (Republican) co-sponsors. It is HR 431. It is briefly summarized as follows: “This bill declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being.” The summary also states that nothing in this bill will permit prosecution of a woman for the death or her unborn child. The full details, including the list of co-sponsors, are available here.]
Here's where it gets interesting. Michelle Steel is one of the co-sponsors. She tweeted that she has used IVF treatments in efforts to get pregnant and strongly opposed the Alabama Court’s ruling.
[See Tori Otten, “GOP Congresswoman Shows Mind-Blowing Hypocrisy on Alabama IVF Ruling,” The New Republic, (Feb 23, 2024) available here.]
I actually called Steel’s office and asked if she was removing her sponsorship from the Life At Conception Act. According to the media, her office has not returned calls on the same subject. I am going to make it my business to call EVERY ONE of those 124 Republicans and ask if they are going to remove their names as sponsors.
On Thursday, February 29, I called the office of Representative Claudia Tenney (R, NY 24) asking if she had made a statement about IVF treatments given that she is one of the sponsors of the Life At Conception Act. They have not released any statement as of yet. It will be interesting to see how she deals with this contradiction.
Clearly, these so-called pro-lifers are going to have to try and square that circle. How? Will they say only fertilized eggs that are aborted are human while the ones created in the process of IVF treatments are not? (This way, the rich privileged folks who can afford IVF treatment and who, by the way, are important cohorts of the Republican electoral coalition, can continue getting the treatment. Remember, all IVF treatments in Alabama have been suspended while they wait for the Legislature to “fix” the problem.)
[In fact, one Republican Senator suggested that that is one way to go: “Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) said “it could be justified to say that the rights of a child do not apply to an in vitro situation, that they would only apply in vivo,” but she declined to endorse the need for federal legislation to protect IVF.” (quoted in Igor Bobic and Alanna Vagianos, “ ‘A Quandary’: Republicans Hesitant To Back Federal Protections For IVF: A new Democratic effort to pass legislation protecting access to in vitro fertilization, which is broadly popular, has put Republicans in a bind.” Huffington Post February 27, 2024, available here.). Here is a passage that reveals the contradictions in the Republican arguments. “On the one hand, Republicans maintain that they support the continued use of IVF, calling it both pro-family and pro-life. But on the other hand, many in the GOP agree with the central premise of the ruling that found that frozen embryos are children with equal rights, a contradictory position that now has them on the defensive on an issue that is supported by over 80% of Americans, including a majority of Republicans.”]
Let us recall, that this Alabama ruling would have been impossible without the Supreme Court’s overruling of Roe v. Wade. In that ruling, the majority referred to “fetal life,” “potential life,” and “unborn human being” enough times to excite the extremists in the so-called pro=life movement who want to ban the IUD (which keeps fertilized eggs from attaching to a uterine wall) as well as IVF. And the Alabama Court jumped right in.
[On this, see: Jamelle Bouie “Samuel Alito Opened the Door to Reproductive Hell” New York Times, Feb 26, 2024: A18 available here. He writes in part: “Added up, the main effect of fetal personhood is to rob women of their right to control their own reproductive capacity and make a choice about when and whether to give birth. It subordinates the actual personhood of a woman …. To the potential for personhood found in an embryo. It is in effect a profound attack on the dignity and equality of women. Proponents of fetal personhood may speak in the language of rights but this particular right is freedom retracting not freedom enhancing … It is not a coincident that the lawmakers spearheading the assault on abortion are …. also the same lawmakers waging a broader campaign to restrict the ability of people in their states to live and think as they please.”
Despite the seeming unanimous view from Maga Republicans that the Alabama State Legislature needs to “fix” this issue, the only REAL WAY to “fix” it is to abandon the idea that a fetus is a person. Notice how Republican Candidate Nikki Haley jumped from saying a fertilized egg is a BABY to saying she strongly opposes the Alabama Supreme Court ruling. But there are plenty on the extreme right who are happy with the Alabama Court ruling (though now they seem to be laying low).
A surefire test of the sincerity of those who claim to support IVF is how members of the Senate respond to the efforts of Senator Tammy Duckworth. Senator Duckworth is a disabled veteran who lost her legs in Iraq. She had both of her children using IVF and in the wake of the overthrow of Roe v. Wade, she introduced a bill in the Senate to protect IVF from laws that would define embryos and fetuses and people.
Here’s a brief exchange with a National Public Radio interviewer:
Shapiro: As you say, you've been introducing bills like the latest one since before the Alabama Supreme Court ruling came down. Since that decision was issued, have you heard from your Republican colleagues? Have you spoken with people like Senator Susan Collins of Maine or independent Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, for example?
Duckworth: I've spoken with them on this for well over four years now. And since the Alabama Supreme Court decision, it's been crickets. I've not heard from a single Republican that I've contacted asking if they would co-sponsor this. And so, they've not come back to me since that decision.
[This quote and more are available here. ]
News Flash: When Senator Duckworth tried to get the Senate to approve her bill under unanimous consent on Wednesday, February 28, a Republican Senator from Mississippi objected. Majority leader Schumer has promised a roll call vote soon.
I entitled this commentary “First they came for abortion. Now they’ve come for IVF.” I was riffing on a well-known statement by an anti-Nazi pastor who detailed all the people the Nazis rounded up while he said nothing. So, when the Nazis came for him, there was nobody left to protest. The so-called right-to-life movement is actually about controlling women’s freedom as Mr. Bouie made clear in his column. There is great interest among some on the extreme right (Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that the Supreme Court should re-visit the ruling that gave people the right to use contraceptives) to go much further than merely giving States the right to regulate or abolish abortions. Those of us living in states where abortion is legal or even enshrined in our state constitutions need to know that there are plenty of members of Congress who would like a national ban on abortion. And that will just be the beginning. They are coming for our rights. We have to fight back.
Michael Meeropol is professor emeritus of Economics at Western New England University. He is the author with Howard and Paul Sherman of the recently published second edition of Principles of Macroeconomics: Activist vs. Austerity Policies.
The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.