Fact Check: New bill could redefine IVF practices under equal protection for 'pre-born humans'
What We Know
The claim regarding a new bill redefining IVF practices stems from the introduction of the Right to IVF Act (S.4445) in the 118th Congress on June 3, 2024. This bill aims to provide a statutory right to access fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), and it emphasizes the right of individuals to make decisions about their reproductive genetic material without interference (Congress.gov).
Moreover, the bill is said to supersede state laws that may limit access to these treatments based on various factors, including marital status or sexual orientation (Congress.gov). Notably, it also includes provisions for coverage of fertility treatments under Medicare and Medicaid, as well as for members of the uniformed services and veterans (Congress.gov).
In addition to the Right to IVF Act, Congressman Eric Burlison introduced the Life at Conception Act, which seeks to affirm the legal status of unborn children as "persons" under the 14th Amendment. This act aims to provide equal protection for "pre-born humans," asserting that life begins at conception and that unborn children should be afforded the same rights as those who are born (Burlison's press release). The Life at Conception Act is part of a broader legislative effort to redefine personhood and has garnered significant support from pro-life advocates (Burlison's press release).
Analysis
The claim that the new bill could redefine IVF practices under equal protection for "pre-born humans" is partially true. The Right to IVF Act indeed seeks to expand access to fertility treatments, which is a significant move in the context of reproductive rights. However, the connection to equal protection for "pre-born humans" is more directly tied to the Life at Conception Act, which explicitly defines unborn children as persons under the law.
The Right to IVF Act does not inherently redefine IVF practices in a way that would grant legal status to embryos or pre-born humans; rather, it focuses on the rights of individuals seeking fertility treatments (Congress.gov). The implications of the Life at Conception Act could potentially intersect with IVF practices, especially if embryos are recognized as persons, but this is a separate legislative effort that has not yet been enacted.
The reliability of the sources varies; the information from Congress.gov is official and credible, as it pertains to legislative documents. In contrast, the press release from Congressman Burlison, while informative, may carry a bias typical of political communications, aiming to garner support for pro-life initiatives (Burlison's press release).
Conclusion
The verdict on the claim is Partially True. While the Right to IVF Act does aim to redefine access to fertility treatments, the assertion that it directly redefines IVF practices under equal protection for "pre-born humans" is more accurately associated with the Life at Conception Act. The two bills address different aspects of reproductive rights and personhood, and while they may intersect, they do not share the same legislative intent.
