(Science Photo Library / Getty Images) |
By Jennifer Weiss-Wolf | As last week’s inaugural gender and democracy round up went to press at The Contrarian, the White House issued an executive order entitled “Expanding Access To In Vitro Fertilization.” The language it employs, and the sheer folly of what it promises, mark it as a double affront to democracy.
Starting with why Trump purports to care about IVF at all. Not long after the Supreme Court’s newly-installed supermajority overturned Roe v. Wade—for which Trump (rightly) claims and deserves all credit—attacks on IVF began to garner media attention. In 2024, Alabama’s highest court ruled that IVF embryos are considered children for purposes of wrongful death lawsuits. The stakes went beyond the impact on IVF (despite ensuing legislative attempts to course correct); the Alabama Supreme Court’s overt embrace of “fetal personhood” also implicates a central legal strategy that could eventually support a federal abortion ban.
Even as the White House has taken predictable swipes at abortion access at home and abroad, and Trump has filled his Cabinet with those who will toe the antiabortion line, especially in top health and law enforcement positions, he has not (yet) gone full “shock and awe” given popular support for IVF and abortion. He has also leaned into a creepy self-designated savior role—”the father of IVF,” as he dubbed himself on the campaign trail, pledging to ensure that fertility treatments are affordable and available.
So what to make of this executive order—a promise fulfilled? From the National Review to MSNBC, few are convinced. I turned to Rutgers Law Professor Kimberly Mutcherson, expert in bioethics and reproductive health, law and technology, to unpack exactly what is at stake for both reproductive health and democracy. Here are four red flags she raised. (Click here to read more) |
