I don't know if there is a big following among infertile couples to watch and keep up with the news. I know when the hubs and I were neck deep in treatments, we were not avidly watching/reading.
So let me fill you in on something that happened this week.
Recently, a case involving Hobby Lobby made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Hobby Lobby believed that they should not have to cover certain kinds of birth control that they "believed" caused abortions because it violated their religious freedoms. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with Hobby Lobby.
There are a few reasons why this matters.
1. The birth controls that they did not want to cover include 2 forms of IUDs and the Plan B pill. For those of you unfamiliar with how these work, Plan B is like a massive dose of your regular old birth control pills. They prevent an egg from being released. If you have already ovulated, Plan B will NOT work. Meaning there is no chance that Plan B can cause an abortion because it prevents egg and sperm from meeting. The two types of IUDs are hormonal and copper. Hormonal IUDs work just like the pill or like implanon. It is a piece of plastic inserted in your uterus that distributes hormones for approximately 7-10 years. Again, it does NOT cause abortions because it prevents an egg from being released. The final IUD, copper, is the only one that can be considered an abortificant because the copper changes the pH of the uterus and makes it inhospitable for a fertilized egg to implant. Note, this only counts as an abortion if you believe that the second egg and sperm meet, new life has been created.
2. The Supreme Court, not wanting to define when life begins, ruled that it doesn't really matter whether or not any of these forms of birth control actually cause abortions, only that Hobby Lobby believes they do.
Yeah. Infertile couples, we got problems. Why does this matter to us? Because it is very easily setting a legal precedent for personhood.
What is personhood you might ask? Personhood is the common vernacular for personhood amendments, which convey the rights of personhood onto a fetus (giving a fetus/unborn baby legal status as a person). The bills claim that life begins at the moment of conception (when sperm and egg meet), and thus a fetus, zygote, etc., should be treated as a whole person.
Personhood bills have been introduced (and defeated) in several states, including (and I was surprised when this bill was defeated) Mississippi.
Most people who support personhood do so because they believe abortion is wrong. And whether or not you agree, I'm not here to argue that. Rather, I want infertile couples to understand the gravity of personhood on infertility treatment.
Can anyone tell me how IVF works? On its most basic level, an egg is taken from mom and sperm is taken from dad. They are combined, and when they start to divide, a zygote is created. Usually there are a ton of zygotes created (because mom is on fertility meds that make her produce a bunch of good eggs...if everything works the way it is supposed to). The Dr. then picks the best looking 2 or 3 zygotes and reintroduces them to mom where *hopefully* they stick and grown into a healthy pregnancy. But what happens to alllllll those other zygotes? It is not uncommon for a woman to end up with 8-12 healthy zygotes. Most of them are frozen (which is how couples can later do FETs). But what if mom and dad are done having kids? They lucked out, got pregnant with triples, and said "thanks, but we're done."
Typically, those zygotes are destroyed (think medical waste) because they are just a combination of cells, similar to removing a cyst or appendix. However, under personhood laws, those zygotes, frozen in a peti dish in some lab, are people. They have all the legal rights of a baby. If a careless lab tech were to drop a petri dish full of zygotes, he or she has committed murder. It would legally be the same as opening fire on a crowded mall and murdered 8-12 people.
Think this is a joke? You would be wrong.
A very real consequence of personhood is that it will likely prevent couples from being able to do IVF because legally every time sperm and egg met, a person had been created, thus voiding almost all steps in the IVF process.
What about ectopic pregnancies? An ectopic pregnancy is one where the zygote attaches to the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. Many women seek fertility treatment later because they lost a fallopian tube to an ectopic pregnancy. In modern times, these pregnancies are aborted early in the hopes of saving both the mother's life and her future fertility, as a pregnancy outside of the womb could never be brought to term.
Under personhood, the zygote growing in the woman's fallopian tube is as much a person as she is, and even though it cannot survive and will likely take her fertility away from her, cannot be aborted.
By agreeing with hobby lobby that IUDs and the morning after pill cause abortions, the Supreme Court is setting a legal precedent that life begins at conception. This rhetoric in our legal system will have serious implication for infertile couples.
I strongly encourage you, if you're not already, to start paying attention to what is going on. At the very least, get some info about the Supreme Court ruling. I am a fan of this one, debunking incorrect beliefs about what the decision actually says.
Best of luck, infertiles.
