By
Early on in President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address, he introduced Americans to Latorya Beasley, a social worker from Birmingham, Alabama, whose recent experiences deserved the national spotlight.
“Fourteen months ago, she and her husband welcomed a baby girl thanks to the miracle of IVF. She scheduled treatments to have that second child, but the Alabama Supreme Court shut down IVF treatments across the state, unleashed by a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. She was told her dream would have to wait. What her family got through should never have happened.”
The incumbent Democrat added, “Unless Congress acts, it could happen again, so tonight, let’s stand up for families like hers. To my friends across the aisle, don’t keep this waiting any longer. Guarantee the right to IVF. Guarantee it nationwide.”
Republicans, whose actions on in vitro fertilization don’t quite match their rhetoric, didn’t exactly rush to applaud Biden’s comments.
But as it turned out, the president’s comments were not the only notable rhetoric the public heard on the issue. Hours earlier, House Speaker Mike Johnson — a co-sponsor of the far-right Life At Conception Act, which would almost certainly curtail access to IVF treatments — was asked by CBS News’ Tony Dokoupil whether he believes destroying or disposing of embryos constitutes murder.
“Um, it’s something that we’ve got to grapple with,” the Louisiana Republican said. “You know, it’s a brave new world. IVF’s only been invented, I think, in the early 70s.”
Of course, part of that message was at odds with the conclusion: If in vitro fertilization has been around for a half-century — spanning roughly all of the House speaker’s lifetime — then it’s not exactly a “brave new world.”
American society already “grappled with” the issue and concluded that the treatments deserve support and protections. The debate, to the extent that one existed, about whether IVF constitutes murder should be seen as resolved — at least outside of the House speaker’s office.
Johnson added that “we” support IVF “and the full access to it.”
And while that certainly sounded nice, there’s a difference between saying families should have “full access” to IVF and actually taking steps to ensure that the access exists. With this in mind, the GOP leader went on to tell CBS that he doesn’t expect Congress to take up the issue.
Or put another way, Biden urged lawmakers, “Guarantee the right to IVF,” to which Johnson has already effectively replied, “No.”
That said, a variety of GOP lawmakers have endorsed symbolic resolutions in support of IVF, but when critics say that such measures wouldn’t do anything, they’re being quite literal: The resolutions would simply say that IVF is good, without taking any steps whatsoever to ensure access to the treatments. The resolutions would have no force of law.
If you’re thinking this is shaping up to be an unexpected election-year issue, you’re not alone.