By
Congressional Republicans are well aware of the broad public support for in vitro fertilization. With one recent poll showing that a whopping 86% of Americans want IVF treatments to be legal, GOP officials realize that it’d be politically dangerous to oppose this popular, safe, and effective pro-family policy.
With this in mind, every member of the Senate Republican conference — literally, all 49 members — signed onto a joint statement, issued this morning, expressing their collective support for IVF access. “We strongly support continued nationwide access to IVF, which has allowed millions of aspiring parents to start and grow their families,” the GOP senators said.
But the phrase “watch what they do, not what they say” comes to mind. It’s one thing for Senate Republicans to express support for IVF in the abstract; it’s something else for them to actually vote for federal legislation that would protect IVF in practice. NBC News reported on the latest effort to govern on the issue, and the number of GOP officials who balked.
Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic-led bill Thursday to codify broad federal protections for in vitro fertilization in the midst of a growing partisan clash over reproductive rights in the United States. ... The Right To IVF Act was brought up for a vote by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to put the GOP in a political predicament less than five months before the 2024 elections.
The legislation was written by three Senate Democrats — Washington’s Patty Murray, Illinois’ Tammy Duckworth, and New Jersey’s Cory Booker — and it would prohibit states from imposing restrictions on the treatments, while also making IVF more affordable.
Two Republican senators — Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Maine’s Susan Collins — voted with the Democratic majority in today’s procedural vote, but every other GOP member balked. The final tally was 48 to 47, with some senators missing the vote. To advance, proponents needed 60 votes, and they obviously didn’t come especially close. (Note: Schumer supported the bill, but ended up voting against for procedural reasons.)
If these circumstances sound at all familiar, it’s not your imagination. In late February, Duckworth sought unanimous consent — a procedural move designed to help quickly advance uncontroversial measures — on the “Access to Family Building Act,” which would create legal protections for IVF at the national level. It also failed in response to Republican opposition.
Two weeks later, Murray tried to pass a bill to expand access to in vitro fertilization for military service members and veterans. It, too, was derailed by Republican opposition.
“Today, senators face a very simple question: Do you agree Americans should have access to IVF, yes or no? If yes, the only correct answer is to vote yes on the Right to IVF Act,” Schumer, the Senate majority leader, said shortly before the procedural vote. “Protecting IVF should be the easiest ‘yes’ vote senators have taken all year. All this bill does is establish a nationwide right to IVF and eliminates barriers for millions of Americans who seek IVF to have kids.”
The New York Democrat added, “To my Republican colleagues who say they’re pro-family, today’s bill protecting IVF is as pro-family as it gets, and we should vote yes today. It is a contradiction to claim you are pro-family but then turn around and block protections for IVF.”
Soon after, the vast majority of GOP senators opposed the measure anyway. The vote came one day after the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest and most politically powerful Protestant denomination, became the latest conservative institution to come out against in vitro fertilization.
If you’re thinking this is shaping up to be an unexpected 2024 campaign issue, you’re not alone.