SC families needing IVF should be protected, lawmakers say. Are they at risk?

Is in vitro fertilization in danger in South Carolina? It’s possible, some warn, but a group of S.C. politicians across the spectrum are determined to protect it.

A preventative bill that explicitly states any form of a fertilized egg that exists outside the uterus would not be considered an unborn child has been filed in the House. Rep. Kambrell Garvin, D-Richland, filed H. 5157 after the Alabama Supreme Court decided to consider frozen embryos as people, ruling that “unborn children are children.”

At least three IVF in Alabama halted services after the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision, which sparked backlash from Democrats and Republicans alike across the nation.

People in states like South Carolina want to know, if it happened in Alabama, could it happen in the Palmetto state?

Republican State Sen. Shane Massey said there isn’t a need for further legislation in South Carolina concerning the topic because IVF is not under threat.

“Our law is very different from Alabama. I am confident that IVF is protected in South Carolina,” Massey told reporters Wednesday. “They [Alabama] have a conception ban, we don’t.”

“What played out in Alabama can’t play out in South Carolina,” he added.

Others disagree on the current law’s scope.

State Rep. Heather Bauer, D-Richland, says a section of the S.C. Fetal Heartbeat Act raises questions about what could be considered an “unborn human.”

The fetal heartbeat bill lists that “unborn child” means “an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from conception until live birth.” Conception is then defined as “fertilization of an ovum by sperm,” she said during a Thursday press conference by the Senate Democratic Caucus.

Bauer said the Alabama Supreme Court had used nearly identical language from their abortion ban to justify the IVF decision.

The IVF decision in Alabama was ruled using the wrongful death of a minor act, which is an Alabama law. Three couples who lost frozen embryos during a storage facility accident sued using the wrongful death of a minor. Although lower courts rejected their argument, their state’s Supreme Court ruled it could be used. Because an embryo outside the uterus would now be considered an unborn human, the clinics’ fears of lawsuits heightened, as they could be charged in similar ways to abortion restrictions.

Vicki Ringer, director of public affairs for SC Planned Parenthood, said every year for at least 25 years, the house or senate has introduced some type of personhood bill, which would “convey all constitutional rights to a fertilized egg, and that’s not even before a pregnancy.”

She recalled testimonies from doctors when they had said there aren’t freezers in the world big enough to accommodate all the eggs that are retrieved. If doctors could be charged with murder and sued for wrongful death, some would no longer provide IVF services, she said.

“Oftentimes, abortion bills will include statements that will refer to a fertilized egg as a person or life begins at conception,” Ringer said. “Those types of references would have the same impact on IVF as a personhood bill would.”

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said he had “no intention of using the recent Alabama Supreme Court decision as a basis for prosecuting IVF families or providers.”

The Senate Democratic Caucus and House members who were sponsors, co-sponsors and supporters of the South Carolina protection bill made clear why Alabama’s decision was a poor choice for women and families alike Thursday.

“Who would have thought we would ever have to protect being a parent in South Carolina?,” asked Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg.

He added there are “forces” out there that don’t believe in the bills being proposed to protect IVF.

Rep. Gil Gatch, R-Dorchester, a co-sponsor of the House bill, said he couldn’t imagine being a potential parent in Alabama where the family process through IVF would halt because of this decision.

“The bill is just a explanation that an embryo that’s not basically implanted inside of the body can’t be considered life for any reason from a legal standpoint.”

Gatch said he believes life begins at conception from a religious and philosophical standpoint. He also said the heartbeat law in effect in South Carolina is a good law. But the question of ‘what happens if an embryo in a freezer is thrown out’ is scary.

“As a policymaker, I understand that not everybody is a Christian and not everybody believes the Bible. You have to figure out what the state’s policy would be on life.”

Although he hadn’t read the bill, Gov. Henry McMaster said protecting families and babies is a good thing.

“I haven’t read the decision either,” he told reporters Thursday. “But I think anything to allow and protect the ability of parents, people who want to be parents to be parents have beautiful babies is a good thing.”

Sen. Richard Cash, R-Anderson, said declined comment Thursday. He said if the protection bills made it into subcommittee, however, he would have something to say about them. Cash was adamant about his anti-abortion stance during the fetal heartbeat law discussion, and even noted some Senators at the time referred to him as the “bishop of Anderson,” Jamie Lovegrove, former SC reporter tweeted in 2021.

“We’re struggling for public opinion right now, and IVF is not a great thing to have a conversation about,” Rep. John McCravy, R-Greenwood, told Politico in an article on the indifference for Republicans on the issue. “It’s a bad development for the cause of life that this is being challenged in Alabama.”