Last week, 4 of Congress’ most unhinged, far right members— neo-fascists Matt Rosendale (R-MT), Bob Good (R-VA), Mary Miller (R-IL) and Josh Brecheen (R-OK)— sent a letter to Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough, whining and huffing and puffing about the VA’s decision to expand in vitro fertilization (IVF) to eligible unmarried veterans and eligible veterans in same-sex marriages. “IVF,” wrote the 4 crackpots, “is morally dubious and should not be subsidized by the American taxpayer. It is well known that IVF treatments result in a surplus of embryos after the best ones are tested and selected. These embryos are then frozen— at significant cost to the parents— abandoned, or cruelly discarded… The new VA policy is shocking not only on a moral level, but on a political and legal level as well.”
After the uproar over the GOP IVF fiasco in Alabama, many Republicans have backed away from attacks on the procedure, after all, people are beginning to pay attention to political reporting as the November election starts coming into view. The GOP candidates have enough trouble defending themselves from anti-Choice messaging already. Any connection to anti-IVF messaging would be toxic for Republicans in swing districts. It’s worth noting that Rosendale (R+16), Good (R+7), Miller (R+22) and Brecheen (R+29) don’t represent seriously contested districts. In fact, Miller has no opponent at all, Rosendale is retiring Good’s only electoral concern is a primary from someone even further right than he is. It would be far more interesting to ask conservatives in swing districts, like Anthony D’Esposito (R-NY), Tom Kean (R-NJ), Ken Calvert (R-CA), Don Bacon (R-NE), Nick LaLota (R-NY), Mike Garcia (R-CA), David Schweikert (R-AZ), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR), Brendon Williams (R-NY) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), what they feel about the quiet GOP endeavors criminalize in vitro fertilization.
Well, speaking of Schweikert, the Democrat likely to flip the Maricopa County seat he occupies, Conor O'Callaghan, let us know that he was a co-sponsor of the extremist "Life at Conception" bill and that his record on IVF is radical-- and radically wrong. “David Schweikert co-sponsored the Life At Conception Act in 2021, a bill that would have amounted to a federal abortion ban and restricted access to IVF nationally. Don’t believe him when he now magically says he will oppose IVF restrictions— Freedom Caucus co-founder David Schweikert is a MAGA extremist who masquerades as a moderate, but AZ-01 voters won’t be fooled again.”
Steven Holden, the progressive Democrat working to flip New York’s North Country is up against the same kind of deceitful MAGA Republican. “Elise Stefanik's stance on reproductive rights,” he told us, “is aligned with the GOP's archaic perspectives on issues like In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). Her feigned concern for the sanctity of life is merely a facade, serving only to pander to evangelical voters. The truth is, Stefanik's allegiance lies not with the protection of life, but with the advancement of her career and the perpetuation of regressive policies. Policies that limit one's autonomy over their own body and their choice on when and how to start a family. It's time to challenge these outdated ideologies and advocate for comprehensive reproductive healthcare that respects the rights and choices of all individuals.”
Yesterday, Megan Messerly and Miranda Ollstein reported that the same kinds of anti-Choice activists who “worked for five decades to topple Roe v. Wade are now laying the groundwork for a yearslong fight to curb in vitro fertilization. Since the Alabama Supreme Court ruled last month that frozen embryos are children, the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups have been strategizing how to convince not just GOP officials but evangelicals broadly that they should have serious moral concerns about fertility treatments like IVF and that access to them should be curtailed. In short, they want to re-run the Roe playbook. They plan to appeal to evangelical denominations and their leaders to take a firm stance that IVF as practiced in the U.S. destroys human life. That, they hope, will reshape how conservative Christians— and in turn, the officials they elect— view the issue, just as it did on abortion. Ultimately, it could lead to laws that create a patchwork of IVF access in the United States, where the procedure is more accessible in liberal states and more limited in conservative ones. ‘We’re at a junction where we could see a similar generational shift— where people begin to consider reproductive technologies not as a separate but as a part of their cohesive pro-life framework,’ said Emma Waters, a senior research associate at the Heritage Foundation. ‘Many of these pro-life Republicans are going to have to think more deeply about what it means to be pro-life.’”
Achieving those goals is no easy task. IVF is broadly popular, according to public polling, in a way abortion never was. But a plan is already in motion to chip away at that support.
Organizations including Heritage, former Vice President Mike Pence’s group Advancing American Freedom, and the Southern Baptist Convention’s public advocacy-focused Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission have worked behind the scenes over the last few weeks to distribute talking points, circulate policy recommendations and educate Republican officials and their staff about their ethical concerns with how IVF is commonly practiced in the United States.
The groups are not advocating banning IVF but want new restrictions that would significantly curtail access to the procedure, such as imposing more regulations on fertility clinics, limiting the number of embryos that can be created or transferred to the uterus at one time, and banning pre-implantation genetic testing, which they argue allows parents to discriminate against their embryos on the basis of sex, disabilities like Down Syndrome or other factors.
At the same time, they have been having conversations within their conservative Christian circles that have revealed how much work they need to do to convince evangelicals that there are ethical problems with the procedure. Most evangelical denominations have not taken firm stances on restricting fertility services like IVF.
The organizations have been frustrated with GOP lawmakers’ recent rush to introduce bills creating broad protections for IVF. Legislators have also distanced themselves from— and in some cases killed— legislation giving embryos the same rights as people, policies they had supported until the Alabama ruling sparked a national firestorm over the legality and ethics of IVF.
But those setbacks have solidified their resolve and convinced them that while they may lose the battle, they can still win the war.
…Lawmakers have, by and large, been reluctant to heed the movement’s calls as they stare down an election and polling numbers that show IVF is overwhelmingly popular with Americans. A CBS News/YouGov poll earlier this month found that 86 percent of respondents thought IVF should be legal, and a survey released in December by a firm run by Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s former senior counselor and campaign manager, found that IVF had 78 percent support among self-identified “pro-life advocates” and 83 percent among evangelical Christians.
Even House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Southern Baptist who served as a trustee of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, has recently stressed his support for IVF and declined to say if the destruction of unused embryos is murder. He also stated earlier in March that he doesn’t see a role for Congress in regulating IVF services and prefers leaving the issue to the states.
“If Mike Johnson— who is dyed-in-the-wool Southern Baptist— is pro-IVF, that just goes to show you the deficit that individuals like myself are working within,” said Andrew Walker, associate professor of Christian ethics and public theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. “That’s what I think has been most dispiriting— watching Republicans run from this. They’re the most pro-life party and yet they’re unwilling to bring their own principles to their logical conclusion.”
In fact, Republican-controlled legislatures in eight states have stalled or killed legislation introduced prior to the Alabama decision that would have granted personhood rights to embryos. In Iowa, a state senator facing a tough reelection bid in a suburban swing district scuttled legislation he said needed more work. In Kentucky, GOP lawmakers earlier this month approved legislation shielding certain doctors from criminal and civil liability, which they say will protect access to IVF services. And in Kansas, a GOP-led Senate committee recently introduced a bill saying embryos outside the uterus are not unborn children or human beings.
In Congress, four Republicans running for re-election in competitive seats have signed onto a bill from Rep. Susan Wild (D-PA) that would create broad federal protections for IVF— and more swing district GOP members may do so as Democratic campaign groups signal they will attack them on IVF between now and November.
Diane Young is running in the must-flip Michigan district represented by sneaky Republican John James. On Twitter he wrote “My mission in Congress is to fight for American families. IVF has helped countless families looking to experience the joy and blessing of parenthood. I cherish life and support initiatives, like IVF, that help families bring more babies into this world.” But, said Young, "John James is a flip flopper and will say just about anything to get elected. He has been endorsed in the past by Right to Life of Michigan which has made it clear that they do not support IVF. And I know one thing, if a National Abortion Ban is brought up for a vote, he will be supporting it. He cannot be trusted to protect reproductive health and freedom!"
Frightened conservative, anti-Choice incumbents, Mike Lawler (R-NY), Anthony D’Esposito (R-NY), Marc Molinaro (R-NY), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Anna Luna Paulina (R-FL), all signed on as co-sponsors to Wild’s bill, although Paulina withdrew a week after she signed on. Messerly and Ollstein wrote that “Mike Carey (R-OH) is working on legislation to expand access to IVF for people who can’t afford the procedure, while Reps. Nancy Mace (R-SC), Michelle Steel (R-CA), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR), and Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ) have put forward non-binding resolutions declaring unqualified support for IVF. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and other anti-abortion groups have attacked those measures as taking an ‘anything goes approach’ that ‘leaves no room for reasonable laws’ that restrict the discarding of embryos. ‘We can’t offer a get-out-of-regulation free card to the IVF industry,’ said Kristi Hawkins, the head of federal policy for Students for Life of America, which will score a vote on the pro-IVF measures the way they score abortion-related bills. Other anti-abortion groups are already attacking GOP lawmakers who voted for IVF protections with language and imagery they have long used to attack Democrats on abortion.”
Abortion-rights groups welcome the focus on IVF because they believe it will hurt Republicans at the polls. Angela Vasquez-Giroux, vice president of communications and research at Reproductive Freedom for All, said that before the fall of Roe anti-abortion groups were able to make their case without having to deal with immediate consequences of their policy positions— something that won’t be true of a push against IVF.
“Republicans keep asking questions about, when is it okay for us to be in charge of your reproductive health? Or, when can we be the people who decide how you build your family?” Vasquez-Giroux said. “Voters are very clearly saying ‘never,’ and until they’re willing to hear that answer, they’re going to keep losing— which is obviously fine by me.
The anti-abortion movement’s short-term goal is to calm Republicans’ political panic and prevent any legislation they see as harmful to their long-term effort, like the bill Alabama GOP lawmakers approved earlier this month that provides civil and criminal immunity to IVF providers for any death or damage to embryos. Long-term, they would like to not only regulate IVF but also other reproductive technologies not yet in use, like in vitro gametogenesis and artificial wombs.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said he expects the panic to subside and for lawmakers to eventually embrace restrictions on IVF, such as “you’re limited to the creation of three embryos, as opposed to a dozen or whatever.”
There are early signs that their message is getting through to some Republicans. The Republican Study Committee— a group comprising the majority of House GOP members— released a budget that includes language advocating for protections “at all stages of life,” with no carveout for embryos fertilized through IVF.
…Complicating matters, the Catholic Church and a growing number of evangelicals, like Walker, believe all IVF is wrong because it separates conception from the sexual act between husband and wife. It’s a theological position even some conservative evangelical denominations may consider a bridge too far.
Jerrad Christian’s opponent, Troy Balderson, doesn’t try to hide his anti-Choice fanaticism from his Ohio constituents. “My opponent believes that life begins at conception,” said Christian. “His sponsorship of the H.R.431— Life at Conception Act displays clearly his intent to make illegal IVF treatments, abortion and to eventually ban contraception. To me, it is not freedom to tell a person what they can and cannot do with their own body. It is not freedom to tell a person what medication they can take, when to start a family, or how to manage their reproductive health. It's essential to understand that individual autonomy and the right to privacy in medical decisions are cornerstones of a free society. Imposing one's beliefs on others, especially in matters as personal as reproductive health, undermines these fundamental principles. I believe in empowering individuals to make their own informed choices, respecting their dignity and personal freedom. It's crucial to foster a society where all individuals, regardless of gender, have the right to make decisions about their bodies and futures without undue government interference.”
All 4 of the candidates highlighted in bold letters above have something else, besides being pro-Choice, in common. They're all part of the Blue America Flip Congress ActBlue page. When you're wondering which candidates to contribute to, that's a good page to take a look at.
Comments