The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization raises the question: will in vitro fertilization and other assisted reproductive technologies remain legal?
The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 83,946 babies born in 2019 were conceived via assisted reproductive technology, or ART. That number has doubled over the past decade, as couples struggling with infertility as well as same-sex couples have explored greater options and opportunities for childbirth.
While the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” many legal experts have noted that the concurrence that conservative Justice Clarence Thomas drafted contradicts this notion. Thomas recommended the Court revisit landmark decisions instating the right to contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), same-sex intimacy (Lawrence v. Texas), and same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges). The common denominator in these three cases is substantive due process, the principle that protects fundamental rights—including those not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution—from government interference.
The right to access assisted reproductive technology, which requires the creation and elimination of embryos, is also bolstered by substantive due process—and therefore, Justice Thomas’ concurrence forecasts a highly uncertain legal future for IVF, says Melissa Murray, professor of law at New York University.
Murray, a leading expert in family law, constitutional law, and reproductive rights and justice, describes Dobbs’ potential implications for access to assisted reproductive technology and other reproductive rights:
The post Expert: IVF is uncertain after Dobbs appeared first on Futurity.
from Futurity https://ift.tt/aYFTXWm
No comments:
Post a Comment