www.nytimes.com Open in urlscan Pro
151.101.65.164  Public Scan

URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/23/us/politics/alabama-ivf-court-republicans-democrats-election.html
Submission Tags: news abortion human rights freedom liberty libertarian women's rights political corruption cronyism Search All
Submission: On February 23 via manual from US — Scanned from US

Form analysis 2 forms found in the DOM

POST https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/23/us/politics/alabama-ivf-court-republicans-democrats-election.html&apn=com.nytimes.android&amv=9837&ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&isi=284862083

<form method="post" action="https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/23/us/politics/alabama-ivf-court-republicans-democrats-election.html&amp;apn=com.nytimes.android&amp;amv=9837&amp;ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&amp;isi=284862083"
  data-testid="MagicLinkForm" style="visibility: hidden;"><input name="client_id" type="hidden" value="web.fwk.vi"><input name="redirect_uri" type="hidden"
    value="https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/23/us/politics/alabama-ivf-court-republicans-democrats-election.html&amp;apn=com.nytimes.android&amp;amv=9837&amp;ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&amp;isi=284862083"><input
    name="response_type" type="hidden" value="code"><input name="state" type="hidden" value="no-state"><input name="scope" type="hidden" value="default"></form>

POST https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/23/us/politics/alabama-ivf-court-republicans-democrats-election.html&apn=com.nytimes.android&amv=9837&ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&isi=284862083

<form method="post" action="https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/23/us/politics/alabama-ivf-court-republicans-democrats-election.html&amp;apn=com.nytimes.android&amp;amv=9837&amp;ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&amp;isi=284862083"
  data-testid="MagicLinkForm" style="visibility: hidden;"><input name="client_id" type="hidden" value="web.fwk.vi"><input name="redirect_uri" type="hidden"
    value="https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/23/us/politics/alabama-ivf-court-republicans-democrats-election.html&amp;apn=com.nytimes.android&amp;amv=9837&amp;ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&amp;isi=284862083"><input
    name="response_type" type="hidden" value="code"><input name="state" type="hidden" value="no-state"><input name="scope" type="hidden" value="default"></form>

Text Content

Skip to contentSkip to site index
Search & Section Navigation
Section Navigation
SEARCH
Politics

SUBSCRIBE FOR $1/WEEKLog in
Friday, February 23, 2024
Today’s Paper
SUBSCRIBE FOR $1/WEEK

I.V.F. Ruling in Alabama

 * What to Know
 * The Court’s Ruling
 * Fertility Industry in Peril
 * A New Front in Abortion Battle
 * What Happens Next?
 * The Chief Justice

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT





Supported by

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT





ALABAMA I.V.F. RULING OPENS NEW FRONT IN ELECTION-YEAR ABORTION BATTLES

As some Republicans rushed to distance themselves from a decision that upended
popular fertility treatments, Democrats vowed to tie them to it.

 * Share full article
 * 
 * 
 * 34
 * Read in app
   


Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina has been among the Republicans
trying to distance themselves from an Alabama Supreme Court ruling declaring
frozen embryos should be considered children.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York
Times


By Lisa Lerer, Elizabeth Dias and Annie Karni

Feb. 23, 2024Updated 5:29 a.m. ET

An Alabama Supreme Court ruling, that frozen embryos should be considered
children, has created a new political nightmare for Republicans nationally, who
distanced themselves from a fringe view about reproductive health that
threatened to drive away voters in November.

Several Republican governors and lawmakers swiftly disavowed the decision, made
by a Republican-majority court, expressing support for in vitro fertilization
treatments. Some spoke out about their personal experiences with infertility.
Others declared they would not support federal restrictions on I.V.F., drawing a
distinction between their support for broadly popular fertility treatments and
their opposition to abortion.

“The concern for years has been that I.V.F. would be taken away from women
everywhere,” Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina, said in an
interview on Thursday. “We need to do everything we can to protect women’s
access in every state to I.V.F.”

Yet, even as some Republicans backed away from the court decision, Republican
legislators in conservative states planned efforts to push bills that would
declare that life begins at conception — a policy that could have severe
consequences for fertility treatments.



Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT



Others acted to protect I.V.F. treatments. Tim Melson, a Republican state
senator in Alabama, said he planned to introduce legislation clarifying that
embryos are not viable until they are implanted in a woman’s uterus.

The division was a new twist on a familiar problem for the party. Since the
Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, many Republicans, including former
President Donald J. Trump, have tried to avoid the issue of abortion and reframe
their proposals — like a 15-week federal ban — as common-sense policies that can
appeal to moderate voters.

Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.



Lisa Lerer is a national political reporter for The Times, based in New York.
She has covered American politics for nearly two decades. More about Lisa Lerer

Elizabeth Dias is The Times’s national religion correspondent, covering faith,
politics and culture. More about Elizabeth Dias

Annie Karni is a congressional correspondent for The Times. She writes features
and profiles, with a recent focus on House Republican leadership. More about
Annie Karni

Read 34 Comments
 * Share full article
 * 
 * 
 * 34
 * Read in app
   





Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT




COMMENTS 34

Alabama I.V.F. Ruling Opens New Front in Election-Year Abortion BattlesSkip to
Comments
Share your thoughts.
The Times needs your voice. We welcome your on-topic commentary, criticism and
expertise. Comments are moderated for civility.




SITE INDEX




SITE INFORMATION NAVIGATION

 * © 2024 The New York Times Company

 * NYTCo
 * Contact Us
 * Accessibility
 * Work with us
 * Advertise
 * T Brand Studio
 * Your Ad Choices
 * Privacy Policy
 * Terms of Service
 * Terms of Sale
 * Site Map
 * Canada
 * International
 * Help
 * Subscriptions




KEEP READING THE TIMES BY CREATING A FREE ACCOUNT OR LOGGING IN.

Continue


Enjoy unlimited access to all of The Times.

See subscription options