Republicans in the US Senate on Thursday (June 13) blocked a bill that aimed to recognise a legal right to in-vitro fertilization (IVF). The bill, as per AFP, was part of a Democratic drive to highlight the threats faced by reproductive freedoms as the November elections approach.

The proposed legislation sought to establish a federal right to IVF and allow providers to offer the procedure, along with expanded insurance coverage, to reduce costs.&nbsp;

<h2>The blocked bill</h2>

The bill required the support of 60 senators to proceed to debate, but only secured backing from 48, with just two Republicans joining Democrats.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/bidens-notorious-dog-has-been-biting-secret-service-members-threatening-their-security-report-731653">Biden's pet German Shepherd kept attacking security personnel right in front of him: Report</a>

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer emphasised the personal significance of IVF, noting its role in the birth of his grandson.

"All this bill does is establish a nationwide right to IVF and eliminate barriers for millions of Americans who seek IVF to have kids," he said.

"It's personal to me. I have a beautiful one-year-old grandson because of the miracle of IVF."

Republicans criticised the bill as excessive and accused Democrats of using it to "show vote" and create alarm about IVF access.&nbsp;

Texas Senator Ted Cruz asserted that no senators were attempting to ban IVF. "Let's be clear: No one is trying to ban IVF. Not one senator," he said.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/cold-case-investigation-leads-to-arrest-in-1982-northamptonshire-baby-murder-731677">Cold case investigation leads to arrest in 1982 Northamptonshire baby murder</a>

<h2>America and IVF</h2>

In America, 82 per cent of Americans find IVF morally acceptable — as reflected by a recent Gallup poll.

However, the destruction of frozen human embryos remains a contentious issue.

IVF became a focal point after the Alabama Supreme Court's February ruling that classified frozen embryos as children, making their destruction a potential liability.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Republicans in the US Senate on Thursday (June 13) blocked a bill that aimed to recognise a legal right to in-vitro fertilization (IVF). The bill, as per AFP, was part of a Democratic drive to highlight the threats faced by reproductive freedoms as the November elections approach.

Republicans in the US Senate on Thursday (June 13) blocked a bill that aimed to recognise a legal right to in-vitro fertilization (IVF). The bill, as per AFP, was part of a Democratic drive to highlight the threats faced by reproductive freedoms as the November elections approach. The proposed legislation sought to establish a federal right to IVF and allow providers to offer the procedure, along with expanded insurance coverage, to reduce costs. The blocked bill The bill required the support of 60 senators to proceed to debate, but only secured backing from 48, with just two Republicans joining Democrats. Also read | Biden's pet German Shepherd kept attacking security personnel right in front of him: Report Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer emphasised the personal significance of IVF, noting its role in the birth of his grandson. "All this bill does is establish a nationwide right to IVF and eliminate barriers for millions of Americans who seek IVF to have kids," he said. "It's personal to me. I have a beautiful one-year-old grandson because of the miracle of IVF." Republicans criticised the bill as excessive and accused Democrats of using it to "show vote" and create alarm about IVF access. Texas Senator Ted Cruz asserted that no senators were attempting to ban IVF. "Let's be clear: No one is trying to ban IVF. Not one senator," he said. Also read | Cold case investigation leads to arrest in 1982 Northamptonshire baby murder America and IVF In America, 82 per cent of Americans find IVF morally acceptable — as reflected by a recent Gallup poll. However, the destruction of frozen human embryos remains a contentious issue. IVF became a focal point after the Alabama Supreme Court's February ruling that classified frozen embryos as children, making their destruction a potential liability. (With inputs from agencies)

Republicans block Democrat bill for IVF rights ahead of November elections

In Florida, Republican legislators have halted a controversial bill that aims to grant new protections to "unborn children," amid fears it could negatively affect women's reproductive rights.

Opponents of the bill have raised concerns over its potential impact on in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatments, even as the bill&nbsp;easily passed through several committees.

<h2>The 'foetal personhood' bill</h2>

Florida's 'foetal personhood' seeks to define a foetus as an "unborn child".&nbsp;This would have extended civil negligence laws to protect foetuses.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/wion-explains-the-embryos-are-babies-debate-and-how-it-will-affect-2024-us-presidential-elections-692761">WION Explains: The 'embryos are babies' debate and how it will affect 2024 US Presidential elections</a>

Supporters, as per The Washington Post, argue that the bill was necessary to align civil law with existing state criminal law, which already imposes additional penalties for harming pregnant women. However, opponents warned that the bill was an effort to establish "foetal personhood",&nbsp;putting abortion providers and those assisting women in obtaining abortions at risk of lawsuits.

State Senator Erin Grall, the bill's sponsor, acknowledged the need for further work on the policy, stating, "Although I have worked diligently to respond to questions and concerns, I understand there is still work that needs to be done."

"It is important we get the policy right with an issue of this significance," added Grall.

<h2>Till when is the 'foetal personhood' bill on pause?</h2>

A Senate Rules Committee hearing for a companion bill was removed from the calendar, with no further meetings scheduled before the session ends on March 8, making it unlikely for the bill to advance.

Representative Jenna Persons-Mulicka, who sponsored the bill in the House, emphasised its focus on the "value of the life of an unborn child," stating it was not intended to address protections for IVF and embryos.

However, opponents, like Democratic Representative Dotie Joseph, have raised concerns about the bill's language.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/embryos-are-babies-nikki-haley-agrees-with-alabama-supreme-court-ivf-ruling-692583">'Embryos are babies': Nikki Haley agrees with Alabama Supreme Court's IVF ruling</a>

"We are exposing the healthcare provider to liability if something goes wrong," said Joseph.

"You have a situation where you are creating a chilling effect for people who are proactively trying to have a baby," she added.

The bill's impact on doctors was also a point of contention, with lobbyist Mark Delegal highlighting concerns about potential damages and increased liabilities for physicians.

<h2>Alabama 'embryos are babies' row</h2>

This development comes as the Republican Party faces political fallout following a recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling declaring embryos as children.&nbsp;

Initially quiet on the ruling, conservative lawmakers are now expressing support for IVF, and women's reproductive rights in an election year.

Watch |&nbsp;Are frozen embryos Children? Alabama Supreme Court gives first-of-its-kind decision

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/are-frozen-embryos-children-alabama-supreme-court-gives-first-of-its-kind-decision-692484/embed" width="560"></iframe>

The debate in Florida is set against the backdrop of the state Supreme Court considering a proposed amendment to codify abortion rights in the state constitution. It also coincides with a legal challenge to the state's 15-week abortion ban.

While similar bills in other states have failed to pass, legal experts suggest the Alabama ruling could embolden the "personhood movement," a concern long-held by abortion rights advocates since the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

(With inputs from agencies)

In Florida, Republican legislators have halted a controversial bill that aims to grant new protections to "unborn children," amid fears it could negatively affect women's reproductive rights.

In Florida, Republican legislators have halted a controversial bill that aims to grant new protections to "unborn children," amid fears it could negatively affect women's reproductive rights. Opponents of the bill have raised concerns over its potential impact on in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatments, even as the bill easily passed through several committees. The 'foetal personhood' bill Florida's 'foetal personhood' seeks to define a foetus as an "unborn child". This would have extended civil negligence laws to protect foetuses. Also read | WION Explains: The 'embryos are babies' debate and how it will affect 2024 US Presidential elections Supporters, as per The Washington Post, argue that the bill was necessary to align civil law with existing state criminal law, which already imposes additional penalties for harming pregnant women. However, opponents warned that the bill was an effort to establish "foetal personhood", putting abortion providers and those assisting women in obtaining abortions at risk of lawsuits. State Senator Erin Grall, the bill's sponsor, acknowledged the need for further work on the policy, stating, "Although I have worked diligently to respond to questions and concerns, I understand there is still work that needs to be done." "It is important we get the policy right with an issue of this significance," added Grall. Till when is the 'foetal personhood' bill on pause? A Senate Rules Committee hearing for a companion bill was removed from the calendar, with no further meetings scheduled before the session ends on March 8, making it unlikely for the bill to advance. Representative Jenna Persons-Mulicka, who sponsored the bill in the House, emphasised its focus on the "value of the life of an unborn child," stating it was not intended to address protections for IVF and embryos. However, opponents, like Democratic Representative Dotie Joseph, have raised concerns about the bill's language. Also read | 'Embryos are babies': Nikki Haley agrees with Alabama Supreme Court's IVF ruling "We are exposing the healthcare provider to liability if something goes wrong," said Joseph. "You have a situation where you are creating a chilling effect for people who are proactively trying to have a baby," she added. The bill's impact on doctors was also a point of contention, with lobbyist Mark Delegal highlighting concerns about potential damages and increased liabilities for physicians. Alabama 'embryos are babies' row This development comes as the Republican Party faces political fallout following a recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling declaring embryos as children. Initially quiet on the ruling, conservative lawmakers are now expressing support for IVF, and women's reproductive rights in an election year. Watch | Are frozen embryos Children? Alabama Supreme Court gives first-of-its-kind decision The debate in Florida is set against the backdrop of the state Supreme Court considering a proposed amendment to codify abortion rights in the state constitution. It also coincides with a legal challenge to the state's 15-week abortion ban. While similar bills in other states have failed to pass, legal experts suggest the Alabama ruling could embolden the "personhood movement," a concern long-held by abortion rights advocates since the reversal of Roe v. Wade. (With inputs from agencies)

Florida halts 'foetal personhood' bill amid concerns over reproduction rights

A US federal appeals court, on Wednesday (August 16th),&nbsp;imposed restrictions on&nbsp;the widely used abortion pill, mifepristone. The ruling, which partially blocks&nbsp;a lower court ruling&nbsp;that sought to&nbsp;revoke&nbsp;Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of the abortion pill, has instead&nbsp;limited&nbsp;its use to the first seven weeks of pregnancy, and&nbsp;prevented its distribution by mail.&nbsp;

Limiting the access and use of the abortion pill,&nbsp;a three-judge panel&nbsp;of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals said: "In loosening mifepristone's safety restrictions, FDA failed to address several important concerns about whether the drug would be safe for the women who use it."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ros-vs-wade-fallout-13-year-old-girl-gives-birth-after-she-was-raped-and-denied-abortion-in-mississippi-625601">Roe vs Wade fallout: 13-year-old girl gives birth after she was raped and denied abortion in Mississippi</a>

As per the news agency AFP, the ruling and the restrictions it imposes will remain on hold as the US Supreme Court ponders whether to take up the case.

<h2>What the ruling means</h2>

The ruling reduces the abortion pill usage window from 10 to seven&nbsp;weeks and&nbsp;mandates that&nbsp;mifepristone must be prescribed by a doctor. However, for the time being, the drug will continue to be available on the market.

The decision, as per AFP, has been made by a panel of conservative judges, two of whom were appointed by former US president Donald Trump, a Republican.

<h2>Reproductive rights,&nbsp;mifepristone and the US</h2>

Anti-abortion groups&nbsp;have been advocating for a ban on mifepristone. Despite the medicine's proven&nbsp;track record, they cite safety concerns as the reason for the proposed ban.

Mifepristone, as per AFP,&nbsp;is responsible for over half of all abortions in the United States.&nbsp;The FDA reports that&nbsp;since its approval in 2000, approximately 5.6 million Americans have used mifepristone to abort pregnancies.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/us-regulatory-body-set-to-unveil-measures-for-surveillance-industry-625929">US regulatory body set to unveil measures for 'Surveillance&nbsp;Industry'</a>

<h2>Pro-choice vs Pro-life</h2>

In April, Texas Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, another appointee of Trump, overturned the FDA's 23-year-old approval of mifepristone. Following this, the Supreme Court&nbsp;stepped in and&nbsp;temporarily preserved&nbsp;access to mifepristone. The apex court then sent the case back to the 5th Circuit.&nbsp;

Kacsmaryk's decision was labelled 'out of bounds' by US President Joe Biden. However, in a hearing held in May, the three-judge panel pushed back against the government's stance that the decision on mifepristone's use should be left to the FDA.

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned the historic Roe v. Wade and the nationwide right to abortion.&nbsp;Since then the United States has been engaged in a&nbsp;struggle over reproductive rights. This legal battle over access to abortion pills is the latest in the ongoing fight.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

A US federal appeals court, on Wednesday (August 16th), imposed restrictions on the widely used abortion pill, mifepristone. The ruling, which partially blocks a lower court ruling that sought to revoke Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of the abortion pill, has instead limited its use to the first seven weeks of pregnancy, and prevented its distribution by mail.

A US federal appeals court, on Wednesday (August 16th), imposed restrictions on the widely used abortion pill, mifepristone. The ruling, which partially blocks a lower court ruling that sought to revoke Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of the abortion pill, has instead limited its use to the first seven weeks of pregnancy, and prevented its distribution by mail. Limiting the access and use of the abortion pill, a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals said: "In loosening mifepristone's safety restrictions, FDA failed to address several important concerns about whether the drug would be safe for the women who use it." Also read | Roe vs Wade fallout: 13-year-old girl gives birth after she was raped and denied abortion in Mississippi As per the news agency AFP, the ruling and the restrictions it imposes will remain on hold as the US Supreme Court ponders whether to take up the case. What the ruling means The ruling reduces the abortion pill usage window from 10 to seven weeks and mandates that mifepristone must be prescribed by a doctor. However, for the time being, the drug will continue to be available on the market. The decision, as per AFP, has been made by a panel of conservative judges, two of whom were appointed by former US president Donald Trump, a Republican. Reproductive rights, mifepristone and the US Anti-abortion groups have been advocating for a ban on mifepristone. Despite the medicine's proven track record, they cite safety concerns as the reason for the proposed ban. Mifepristone, as per AFP, is responsible for over half of all abortions in the United States. The FDA reports that since its approval in 2000, approximately 5.6 million Americans have used mifepristone to abort pregnancies. Also read | US regulatory body set to unveil measures for 'Surveillance Industry' Pro-choice vs Pro-life In April, Texas Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, another appointee of Trump, overturned the FDA's 23-year-old approval of mifepristone. Following this, the Supreme Court stepped in and temporarily preserved access to mifepristone. The apex court then sent the case back to the 5th Circuit. Kacsmaryk's decision was labelled 'out of bounds' by US President Joe Biden. However, in a hearing held in May, the three-judge panel pushed back against the government's stance that the decision on mifepristone's use should be left to the FDA. In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned the historic Roe v. Wade and the nationwide right to abortion. Since then the United States has been engaged in a struggle over reproductive rights. This legal battle over access to abortion pills is the latest in the ongoing fight. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

US appeals court places restrictions on abortion pill mifepristone, Supreme Court to have final say

reproduction-rights

Reproduction Rights, News on Reproduction Rights, stories on Reproduction Rights, articles on Reproduction Rights, Reproduction Rights stories at Wion, Reproduction Rights news, Reproduction Rights latest news