WASHINGTON (States Newsroom) — The closely divided U.S. Senate gridlocked Tuesday over the best way to provide nationwide protections for in vitro fertilization, despite lawmakers from both political parties maintaining they want to do so.
Republicans voted against advancing a Democratic bill that could have prevented states from enacting “harmful or unwarranted limitations” on the procedure and bolstered access for military members and veterans. Two Republicans voted with Democrats — Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski.
That came just a short time after Senate Democrats — who narrowly control the chamber — in a procedural move blocked a GOP bill from Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Katie Britt of Alabama that would have barred Medicaid funding from going to any state that bans IVF.
The 51-44 vote that prevented Democrats’ legislation from moving toward a final vote followed numerous floor speeches and press conferences, including by the Harris-Walz presidential campaign, that sought to elevate the issue ahead of the November elections. The measure needed 60 votes to advance.
“This is a chance for my colleagues across the aisle to put their votes where their mouths have been,” said Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth, the bill’s sponsor and a mom of two children born as a result of IVF. “They say they support IVF. Here you go — vote on this.”
Duckworth said the legislation would provide critical IVF services to U.S. military members and veterans, many of whom experience infertility or experience difficulty having children due to their service.
“It allows our military men and women, prior to a deployment into a combat zone, to preserve and freeze their genetic material so that should they come home with injuries that result in them becoming infertile, they will have already preserved their genetic material so that they can, themselves, start those beautiful families they wanted,” Duckworth said.
Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris released a written statement following the vote, rebuking GOP senators for blocking the bill.
“Every woman in every state must have reproductive freedom,” Harris wrote. “Yet, Republicans in Congress have once again made clear that they will not protect access to the fertility treatments many couples need to fulfill their dream of having a child.”
Republicans blocked the Democrats’ bill earlier this year. But Senate leadership scheduled another vote after Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump reignited the issue in August when he said his administration would mandate health insurance companies pay for IVF — a significant break with how the GOP has approached the issue.
“We are going to be, under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment,” Trump said during an interview with NBC News. “We’re going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.”
Alabama ruling
Democrats began speaking at length about preserving access to IVF earlier this year after the Alabama state Supreme Court issued an opinion in February that frozen embryos constitute children under state law.
That ruling forced all the state’s IVF clinics to halt their work until the state legislature passed a bill providing criminal and civil protections for those clinics.
Democrats have since argued that legislating the belief life begins at conception, which is championed by most conservative Republicans, is at odds with access to IVF, which typically freezes more embryos than would be implanted.
Those frozen embryos can be preserved or discarded, depending on the patient’s wishes, the clinic’s policies and state law. Some conservatives believe that discarding shouldn’t be legal or are opposed to the process altogether.
The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, voted earlier this year to oppose IVF, writing in a resolution that couples should consider adoption and that the process “engages in dehumanizing methods for determining suitability for life.”
“We grieve alongside couples who have been diagnosed with infertility or are currently struggling to conceive, affirm their godly desire for children, and encourage them to consider the ethical implications of assisted reproductive technologies as they look to God for hope, grace, and wisdom amid suffering,” it stated.
Senate Democrats’ press for IVF protections has gone hand-in-hand with their efforts to bolster other reproductive rights, like access to birth control and abortion.
The issues could play a significant role in determining the outcome of the presidential election this November as well which political party controls the House and Senate.
Republican vice presidential nominee and Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance missed Tuesday’s vote, but voted against advancing Democrats’ IVF bill when it was on the floor in June.
IVF bill from Cruz, Britt
Before the Senate held a vote on Democrats’ bill, Cruz asked for quick approval of an IVF bill he and Britt introduced earlier this year.
Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray blocked his unanimous consent request.
During debate on that bill, Britt questioned why Democrats haven’t scheduled a recorded vote on her legislation, saying it could get the 60 votes needed to advance toward final passage.
“Today, we have an opportunity to act quickly and overwhelmingly to protect continued nationwide IVF access for loving American families,” Britt said. “Our bill is the only bill that protects IVF access while safeguarding religious liberty.”
The Britt-Cruz legislation has three co-sponsors, including Wyoming Sen. Cynthia Lummis, Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall and Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker.
Murray said the Britt-Cruz bill didn’t address what would happen in states that legislate fetal personhood, which she called “the biggest threat to IVF.”
“It is silent on whether states can demand that an embryo be treated the same as a living, breathing person,” Murray said. “Or whether parents should be allowed to have clinics dispose of unused embryos, something that is a common, necessary part of the IVF process.”
Cruz tried to pass his legislation through the unanimous consent process, which allows any one senator to ask for approval. Any one senator can then block that request from moving forward — as Murray did. There is no recorded vote as part of the UC process.
Cruz previously asked for unanimous consent to pass the bill in June, but was blocked then as well.
Legal protections
Democrats’ 64-page bill would have provided legal protections for anyone seeking fertility treatment, including IVF, and for the health care professionals providing that type of care.
It would have barred state and federal governments from “enacting harmful or unwarranted limitations or requirements” on IVF access.
The legislation would have bolstered fertility treatment coverage for members of the military and veterans, as well as their spouses, partners, or gestational surrogates.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine supports Democrats’ legislation. Chief Advocacy and Policy Officer Sean Tipton wrote in a statement released this week that Democrats’ IVF bill would “protect the rights of Americans to seek the medical services they may need to have children and ensure no healthcare provider faces legal consequences for trying to help their patients as they seek to build their families.”
“This legislation also increases access to IVF treatments for all Americans by mandating that employer-sponsored insurance plans and other public insurance plans cover fertility treatment,” Tipton wrote. “Significantly, it would ensure the federal government does right by its own employees by providing coverage for active-duty military, veterans, and civilian staff.”
Citizens press HabCo Commission to build animal shelter
It was standing room only at the Habersham County Commission meeting Monday night. The room was filled mostly with citizens pressing the commission to move forward with building a new animal shelter. Many wore makeshift hats made of construction paper stating, “Build our shelter.”
Voters approved the shelter in SPLOST VII, but county leaders say construction costs have more than quadrupled since the construction budget was set in 2019. Citizens have pressed the commission for over a year to proceed with the project. The urgency at that time was due to overcrowding from the number of strays animal control had to house.
Two groups have addressed their positions on social media about the animal shelter. One group supports building the animal shelter as soon as possible. Another group has requested that the commission take a 90-day pause to review the cost of construction as a cost-saving measure.
Several citizens spoke during the public comments section of the commission meeting on September 16. Some spoke in favor of the pause, while others spoke against it, pressing commissioners to move forward with construction.
Pause
Dale Latty supports pausing the shelter project. He asked commissioners to put the shelter project on hold for 90 days. Patty told the commission that even though he and his group were late to the discussion, they had questions about how the county came to the amount for the construction costs.
“It’s been a long road to this point. It’s a difficult thing to come up so late in a game like this but it’s also, I think, justified in this case in what we’ve seen in the cost escalations,” he said.
Latty explained that everyone he had spoken with over the last couple of weeks wants the animal shelter “but not at any cost.” He expressed that over the last ten days, his group has looked over some of the information they have been provided. They feel that they could bring the cost down even more.
Latty commended the county for bringing the estimated cost down by making value engineering cuts. According to him, the estimated cost originally was $9.4 million. With those cuts so far, it has been reduced to $7.56 million. He feels that more could be done to lower costs further, which may allow the county to restore some of those cuts.
Latty asked the commission to pause its work and explore other potential cost-saving measures.
Move forward
On the other side of the argument is Katherine Warwick, who has publicly pushed the commission to build the shelter for over a year. Last week, she took to social media asking county residents to attend the commission meeting to express their concerns about the existing shelter and the need for a new one.
“I am blown away by the people that have shown up here tonight. I can’t say how much I appreciate that,” she said during the public comments section of the meeting.
Warwick explained to commissioners that she has been involved in some capacity with the animal shelter over the last 25 years. During that time, she said she saw constant turnover with directors in that department. Also, during that time, the animal shelter had a euthanasia rate of 75%. Since Madi Nix came on board, that rate has substantially declined.
Warwick expressed her fear that with the conditions and challenges at the animal shelter, Nix may suffer from burnout and leave the county. She explained that with the growth the county has seen over the last couple of years, there has been a rise in the shelter population. That rise is due to owners surrendering animals to the shelter.
“We need this to happen and not be paused and not be put on the back burner any longer,” she told the commission. She told the commission that the problem would only get worse as more people moved into the county.
Chairman response
Commission Chairman Ty Akins expressed his appreciation for everyone who came out to speak to the commission on behalf of their side of the animal shelter topic.
“I didn’t want anybody in the room to think we are making a rush decision.”
Akins explained that the commission has discussed the animal shelter issue multiple times. He said he was unsure where the original $1.7 million budget for the animal shelter construction came from, calling it “unrealistic” to build anything.
“We’re trying to make the best decision we can,” he said.
During an earlier work session, commissioners discussed potential funding options for the animal shelter. However, they did not vote on funding or a timeline during their regular meeting. County Public Works Director Jerry Baggett said they are still working on cutting costs through value engineering.