A year following the overturning of the landmark Roe v Wade decision by the US Supreme Court, which had significant implications for abortion rights, some patients undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) are grappling with apprehensions that potential new legislation could impact their fertility treatment. As a consequence, several women are contemplating the idea of relocating their cryopreserved embryos to different states.
Julie Eshelman’s journey toward building her family has been fraught with challenges. “My husband and I were married in 2015,” she recounts. “We thought it prudent to wait a year before beginning to have children. By 2016, after six months of trying, I realized that things weren’t progressing as anticipated, and I began to suspect an issue.”
Thus began a journey of numerous fertility tests, treatments, three miscarriages, and a cascade of emotional distress. Ultimately, in June 2021, Julie gave birth to a baby girl. “We now have a wonderful, spirited, and vivacious two-year-old daughter,” she says, her voice exuding joy.
However, the path to a second child was far from straightforward. At the time of the Supreme Court’s reversal of the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling, which effectively eliminated a nationwide right to abortion and enabled individual states to implement their own restrictions, Julie and countless others began to grapple with complex dilemmas.
Some state legislators, in the process of reshaping regulations in response to the court decision, introduced bills defining life as commencing at fertilisation. Such a stance has profound implications for IVF procedures.
In typical IVF protocols, eggs are harvested from a woman’s ovaries, fertilised in a laboratory setting, and then screened. Viable embryos are either transferred to the womb or cryopreserved for future usage. Those not deemed viable or remaining unused might be discarded.
However, if life is legally declared to initiate at the moment of fertilisation, medical professionals and patients like Julie are concerned about the potential consequences for the IVF process.
During the time of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Julie was preparing to relocate due to her husband’s military service, moving to Pennsylvania. However, she was deeply concerned about a proposed bill in that state, fearing it could impact embryo storage and IVF. Cognizant of the risk, Julie chose to leave her embryos in the more permissive environment of Illinois, where she had previously undergone her last IVF cycle. This decision prolonged her IVF treatment by at least six months, further straining a process already laden with stress, duration, and financial burden.
Looking ahead, Julie’s family is poised for another move when her husband’s military deployment requires relocation next year. The uncertainty surrounding the destination and associated laws raises worries that delays could adversely impact her prospects of achieving a successful pregnancy.
Julie’s experience underscores the intricate intersection of evolving legal frameworks, personal reproductive choices, and the intricate world of fertility treatments, creating an intricate tapestry of challenges for individuals navigating these realms.
