This is probably a question geared more towards people who have a background in medicine or law. But I’ve read in the past that Eugenics/IVF could run into issues if roe v wade were ever overturned. Is that a legitimate concern or more of a “in extreme cases someone will put a bill out that will never pass because it contains language banning IVF”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m not all that familiar with history of laws governing IVF, but I don’t think Roe ever really stood in the way of banning IVF. So I don’t see what difference it would make unless an anti-abortion bill is so sweeping that they accidentally ban IVF.
Here’s an excerpt from a wired magazine article:
“The most immediate concern, says Sean Tipton, chief advocacy, policy, and development officer of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, is that a lot of states use language in their laws that would give legal and constitutional status to the fertilized egg should Roe be overturned. At the moment, 13 states in the US have “trigger” laws in place that would ban all or nearly all abortions immediately or very quickly if Roe were overturned, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights advocacy and research group. In many of these laws, life is defined as beginning at the moment of fertilization, although the exact language differs from state to state.
By this definition, any procedure involving the destruction of a fertilized egg is at risk of being outlawed if Roe v. Wade is overturned—a fertilized egg would theoretically hold the same rights as a kindergartner. This is the manifestation of the “personhood” movement, propagated by pro-lifers, which seeks to define fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as people with equal protections under the law. “It is a clear and present danger to all forms of reproductive health care,” Tipton says.
https://www.wired.com/story/ramifications-of-post-roe-world/Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
