By Cassius "Broadside" Quill
A debate many assumed was settled after the political backlash to Alabama's embryo-personhood ruling has been reignited. In LePage v. Mobile Infirmary Clinic, decided by the Alabama Supreme Court on February 16, 2024, the court held that frozen embryos count as children under state law. Republican leaders rushed then to declare their support for IVF. Public approval of the technology, which has helped millions of families have children, is generally described as broad, though this article has not identified a specific poll — pollster, date, and topline number — to cite in support of that characterization, and readers should treat it as a general impression rather than a documented survey finding. Yet a persistent minority of thinkers, mostly but not exclusively religious conservatives, continue to press the harder question the backlash sidestepped: what happens to the embryos IVF does not use, and does that make the practice something society should restrict rather than celebrate?
The case for restricting or banning IVF
The argument starts from a premise many Americans already hold in another context: that a human embryo, from the moment of fertilization, has moral status deserving protection. If that premise is true, then standard IVF practice is difficult to defend as currently practiced. Clinics routinely create more embryos than will be implanted, screen them for viability or genetic traits, and then discard, indefinitely freeze, or use for research the ones not selected. Critics argue that a society willing to pass laws restricting abortion because it treats embryonic and fetal life as morally significant cannot consistently wave through an industry that creates and destroys embryos with far less scrutiny. They point to the scale of embryo storage as evidence this isn't a fringe technicality. Estimates of the number of embryos held in long-term U.S. storage could not be independently verified for this article and are not attributed to a named source such as ASRM or RESOLVE; readers should treat the figure as unconfirmed pending further reporting. Some in this camp favor an outright ban; others favor a narrower reform requiring that only as many embryos be created as will be implanted, eliminating the discard problem while preserving some version of the technology. What unites them is the conviction that IVF's benefits to hopeful parents, however real and moving, cannot simply override the question of what is owed to the embryos themselves. They see the swift political retreat after the Alabama ruling not as proof the issue is settled, but as proof that comfort and convenience are winning out over a moral principle conservatives claim to hold in every other context.
The case against restricting or banning IVF
The opposing view starts from the lived reality of infertility, which affects a significant share of couples trying to conceive, and treats IVF as one of medicine's genuine triumphs: a technology that has allowed millions of otherwise childless people to become parents. Defenders argue that banning or heavily restricting it would be a profound intrusion into personal and family life, imposed by a small minority of activists against the wishes of the vast majority of the public. Defenders further contend — as their argument, not as an independently confirmed statistic — that most religious conservatives themselves support IVF access even as they hold complicated views about abortion. They note that treating a fertilized egg in a lab dish as morally identical to an implanted pregnancy is a contested philosophical claim, not a settled fact, and that most Americans intuitively distinguish between the two even if they can't fully articulate why. Practically, defenders warn that "single embryo" mandates or storage restrictions would make IVF less effective, more expensive, and more physically grueling for women who would need repeated egg retrieval cycles, effectively pricing out or discouraging the very families the technology exists to help. They also point to the political lesson of the Alabama backlash: when forced to confront the actual consequences of embryo-personhood reasoning applied consistently, the public recoiled, suggesting the abstract principle does not survive contact with real families' experience of wanting a child.
The unresolved tension
Both sides are responding honestly to the same underlying fact: IVF's success depends on practices — embryo creation in excess of what's implanted — that sit uneasily with any strong claim about embryonic personhood. Those who want restrictions are not wrong that this tension exists; those who defend the status quo are not wrong that resolving it through prohibition would be sweeping, costly, and opposed by most of the people it would affect. The open question is whether some middle path, reform rather than ban, can honor both the moral worry and the practical stakes, or whether the two positions are, at bottom, incompatible.
The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."