Senate Republicans rejected another Democratic election-year messaging bill on reproductive issues Thursday, this one focused on protecting access to in vitro fertilization.
The text vote failed 48-47, a similar margin to last week’s unsuccessful Senate vote to begin debate on a bill to codify the right to contraception. Sens. Susan M. Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska were the only Republicans to support both measures, which required 60 votes to survive.
Republicans said there are no serious efforts underway to strip away the right to contraception or in vitro fertilization (IVF) and Democrats are just trying to create a wedge issue for political purposes.
“Senate Democrats have embraced a Summer of Scare Tactics — a partisan campaign of false fearmongering intended to mislead and confuse the American people,” said a joint statement signed by all 49 Senate Republicans. “In vitro fertilization is legal and available in every state across our nation. We strongly support continued nationwide access to IVF, which has allowed millions of aspiring parents to start and grow their families.”
But Democrats counter that the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson overturning the constitutional right to abortion has opened the door to efforts to strip away access to other reproductive health protections. They cited an Alabama Supreme Court decision from earlier this year ruling that frozen embryos are children under state law resulting in a temporary halt on IVF services across the state.
The Southern Baptist Convention adopted a resolution Wednesday taking a similar view as the Alabama Supreme Court in regards to viewing frozen embryos as children and denouncing the production of excess embryos that are often destroyed, which some saw as an attack on IVF.
Republicans “have tried to pretend this is fearmonger, but we all saw with our own eyes what happened earlier this year in Alabama where IVF was thrown into chaos,” said Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat.
In addition to codifying the right to IVF treatments, the Democrats’ bill would impose coverage requirements on federal and private employer health plans to cover fertility treatments like IVF.
Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Katie Britt of Alabama have a far narrower alternative bill that would prevent states from banning IVF if they want to continue receiving federal Medicaid funding. They tried to pass it Wednesday via unanimous consent, but Democrats objected.
Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, called the Cruz-Britt bill “fig leaf messaging” that even the conservative Heritage Foundation does not support. He said groups like Heritage and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America “are making it plain as day that IVF is the hard-right’s next project.”
Mr. Cruz, responding to Democrats saying his bill doesn’t go far enough to protect IVF, said every state participates in Medicaid.
“There’s no state that would decline those funds, and conditions on spending are a frequent mechanism for imposing federal requirements,” he said.
One of the key differences between the competing IVF bills, Mrs. Murray said, is that the GOP measure “is silent on whether parents should be allowed to have clinics dispose of unused embryos.” She said she asked Mr. Cruz the question and he did not answer but noted he previously supported a constitutional amendment to establish fetal personhood.
“That means: a national abortion ban, beginning at conception, that says an embryo should have the exact same rights as a human being,” Mrs. Murray said.
Democrats had scheduled the vote on their IVF bill before Republicans had invited former President Donald Trump to speak to them on Capitol Hill the same day, but they used the timing to draw a contrast between the two parties’ priorities.
“As Donald Trump talks about protecting tax cuts for the rich, we Democrats in the Senate are talking about protecting women’s reproductive freedoms,” Mr. Schumer said. “It is a fitting encapsulation of what’s at stake this year.”
• Lindsey McPherson can be reached at lmcpherson@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.