Leelee Ray and her husband, Austin, have been trying to have a baby for six years, through insemination procedures, two egg retrievals, four embryo transfers, one potentially fatal ectopic pregnancy and eight miscarriages.
With four frozen embryos left in storage at a fertility clinic, the Rays, who live in Huntsville, Ala., decided to change course. In February, they turned to an agency in Colorado, where laws regarding gestational carriers are more forgiving than Alabama’s, to find a woman to carry their baby.
That all came to a screeching halt a few days later, when the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos should be considered “extrauterine children” under state law and some fertility clinics in the state suspended IVF treatments.
“When I called my clinic to ask how soon I could get my embryos out of the state, they told me that everything was on hold, including the shipment of the embryos,” said Ms. Ray, 35.
Hoping to quell the national unrest in the court’s decision, Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, introduced legislation Wednesday night that protects IVF clinics against civil actions and criminal prosecutions related to the handling of embryos.
But for parents-to-be like the Rays, the damage has already been done.
The decision delayed fertility treatments that were costly, physically and emotionally, and very time-sensitive, drawing valuable resources that many couples did not have. Their experiences could be repeated in other states as anti-abortion forces push to redefine the beginning of life.
The Rays’ surrogacy contract called for their embryos to be sent to Colorado as soon as possible. The surrogacy agency is working with the couple to extend the deadline, but if delays continue, the Rays could lose tens of thousands of dollars, as well as access to the surrogate of their choice.
“I love that so many of our legislatures are people of faith who agree with my thoughts and beliefs,” said Ms. Ray. “But this is not a place for the government to get involved.”
“Now people are scared to death, and we’re all texting, saying, ‘Let’s move our embryos to California, the most liberal state we can think of, where we think it’s the last place that this could happen,'” he added.
The court’s decision caught some patients at a pivotal, vulnerable point in their treatment.
Jasmine York, 34, an emergency and intensive care nurse in Alexander City, Ala., had just begun a course of medication to prepare for frozen embryo implantation when her doctor called to say the court’s decision was on hold. in the process.
“I was completely shocked,” said Ms. York, who describes himself as a Christian who does not support abortion. (He wears a pin depicting a robed, Christ-like figure asking “Do you need me?”)
Ms. York and her husband, Jared, have a 13-year-old daughter from her first marriage, but her husband has no biological children, and they want to have a baby. He felt both despair and a little anger, he said. “At the end of the day, other people’s opinions change my future.”
He added: “Didn’t God give us science? Did he give us the ability to perform all these medical miracles? Doesn’t he do them?”
Rebecca Mathews, a 36-year-old mother of two through IVF, one of whom is named after her fertility doctor, wrestled with a variety of questions when the decision came down.
She and her husband, Wright, have one remaining frozen embryo, and their family feels complete. But they haven’t decided whether to try for another pregnancy. “We thought we had time,” said Ms. Mathews, who lives in Montgomery, Ala.
The new law shielding IVF clinics may offer couples some breathing room, but how much is unclear. The law does not address the underlying legal issue — that frozen embryos are children under state law — and its protections are so broad that it may not survive legal challenges.
“It’s hard enough to decide what to do with these embryos,” Ms. Mathews. “This is a decision you have to make with your spouse and doctor. We don’t need the government to get involved.”
National anti-abortion groups that believe the embryos — frozen just days after the eggs are fertilized — form life have run afoul of the new law. More than a dozen organizations, including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, urged Governor Ivey not to sign the bill, arguing that the court’s ruling “only requires fertility clinics to conduct due caring for the lives they create.”
An Alabama lawmaker who argued against the new law, State Representative Ernie Yarbrough, a Republican from Morgan, Ala., said the episode “uncovers a silent holocaust going on in our state,” adding yet, “We are dealing with life and death. of children.”
Over the past two weeks, many parents and parents-to-be who identify as Christians have struggled with conflicting feelings about the sudden intersection of religious belief and public policy.
Lauren Roth, 30, who has a 7-month-old baby born after IVF, was one of several people who attended a rally in Montgomery in support of legislation to protect the clinics. He and many others wore orange, a color supporters say has symbolized fertility since ancient times.
Ms. Roth and her husband, Jonathan, have seven frozen embryos. She wants to transfer them all to her uterus, she says, “as long as I’m healthy.”
“I personally believe that they are unique beings created in the image of God, that each one is a unique genetic embryo that will never exist again,” said Ms. Roth. “I value embryos as living, but that’s a personal, individual belief.”
Other women who have gone through IVF disagree, saying that an embryo in a test tube should not be considered a child.
“It can’t grow in a child outside the womb,” said Mallory Howard, 34, who lives outside Mobile, Ala. “To me, that’s not conception.”
She had two children and was about to begin a round of ovarian stimulation to prepare for egg retrieval when the decision was released. The procedure is delayed.
The court’s ruling “means that any time you have sex and an egg is fertilized but not implanted, and you don’t even know about it, that can be considered an abortion,” Ms. Howard.
“We’re in the South, where people don’t want the government dictating whether they should own a gun or not,” Ms. Howard. “But they’re OK with the government saying that reproductive rights are government business, because they agree with that agenda.”
