Editing In vitro fertilisation (section)

===United States===
Despite strong popular support (7 out of 10 adults consider IVF access a good thing<ref name="Borelli">{{cite web |last1=Borelli |first1=Gabriel |date=13 May 2024 |title=Americans overwhelmingly say access to IVF is a good thing |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/05/13/americans-overwhelmingly-say-access-to-ivf-is-a-good-thing/ |access-date=2 October 2024 |website=Pew Research Center}}</ref> and 67% believe that health insurance plans should cover IVF<ref>{{cite web |date=April 23, 2024 |title=Survey shows strong support for increased access to fertility treatments |url=https://www.asrm.org/news-and-events/asrm-news/press-releasesbulletins/survey-shows-strong-support-fertility/ |access-date=2 October 2024 |website=American Society for Reproductive Medicine |language=en |archive-date=14 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240914082701/https://www.asrm.org/news-and-events/asrm-news/press-releasesbulletins/survey-shows-strong-support-fertility/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>), IVF can involve complicated legal issues and has become a contentious issue in US politics.<ref name="Cohen">{{cite news |last1=Cohen |first1=Rachel M. |date=26 March 2024 |title=Why IVF looks different in the US than in the rest of the world |url=https://www.vox.com/policy/2024/3/26/24104638/abortion-ivf-duckworth-regulation-reproductive-technology |access-date=2 October 2024 |work=Vox}}</ref><ref name="Parry">{{cite web |last1=Parry |first1=John Preston |title=7 Fertility Legal Insights To Avoid Common Pitfalls |url=https://positivestepsfertility.com/blog/fertility-legal-insights/ |access-date=2 October 2024 |website=positivestepsfertility.com}}</ref>  Federal regulations include screening [[Current Good Tissue Practices|requirements and restrictions]] on donations,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=1271.90|title=21 CFR 1271.90(a)(2)|publisher=[[US Food and Drug Administration]]}}</ref> but these generally do not affect heterosexually intimate partners.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2016) |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-06-22/html/2016-14721.htm |access-date=2024-10-02 |website=www.govinfo.gov}}</ref> Doctors may be required to provide treatments to unmarried or LGBTQ couples under non-discrimination laws, as for example in California.<ref name="Bob Egelko 2008"/> The state of [[Tennessee]] proposed a bill in 2009 that would have defined donor IVF as adoption.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Fiscal/HB2159.pdf |title=Fiscal Note, HB 2159 – SB 2136, from Tennessee General Assembly Fiscal Review Committee |access-date=22 May 2012}}</ref> During the same session, another bill proposed barring adoption from any unmarried and cohabitating couple, and activist groups stated that passing the first bill would effectively stop unmarried women from using IVF.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=SB0078&ga=106 |title=SB 0078 by Stanley, Bunch. (HB 0605 by DeBerry J, Hensley.) |publisher=Wapp.capitol.tn.gov |access-date=22 May 2012 |archive-date=23 August 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140823231950/http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=SB0078&ga=106 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eggdonor.com/blog/2009/03/31/tennessee-seeking-to-ban-ivf-for-unmarried-individuals/ |title=Tennessee Seeking To Ban IVF For Unmarried Individuals |publisher=Eggdonor.com |date=31 March 2009 |access-date=22 May 2012}}</ref> Neither of these bills passed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tnep.org/html/LegislativeUpdates/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080207084218/http://www.tnep.org/html/LegislativeUpdates/ |archive-date=7 February 2008 |title=Legislative Update |publisher=Tnep.org |access-date=22 May 2012}}</ref>

In 2023, the Practice Committee of the [[American Society for Reproductive Medicine]] (ASRM) updated its guidelines for the definition of “infertility” to include those who need medical interventions “in order to achieve a successful pregnancy either as an individual or with a partner.”<ref name="Sealy">{{cite news |last1=Sealy |first1=Amanda |title=Infertility gets a new, expanded definition to address 'the reality of all' seeking care, medical group says |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/23/health/reproductive-medicine-group-updates-its-definition-of-infertility-to-address-the-reality-of-all-seeking-care/index.html |access-date=2 October 2024 |work=CNN |date=23 October 2023 |language=en}}</ref> In many states, legal and financial decisions about provision of infertility treatments reference this “official” definition.<ref name="Merelli">{{cite news |last1=Merelli |first1=Annalisa |title=The official definition of infertility now includes LGBTQ+ and single people |url=https://www.statnews.com/2023/10/24/infertility-lgbtq-single-parents/ |access-date=2 October 2024 |work=STAT |date=24 October 2023}}</ref> On September 29, 2024, California Governor [[Gavin Newsom]] signed SB 729, legislation which aligns with the ASRM definition of “infertility”.<ref>{{cite news |title=California Expands Access to IVF and Makes Infertility Care More LGBTQ Inclusive |url=https://mombian.com/2024/09/30/california-expands-access-to-ivf-and-makes-infertility-care-more-lgbtq-inclusive/ |access-date=2 October 2024 |work=Mombian |date=30 September 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Governor Signs SB 729, A Victory for Reproductive Justice in California |url=https://sd20.senate.ca.gov/news/governor-signs-sb-729-victory-reproductive-justice-california |website=California State Senator Caroline Menjivar |access-date=2 October 2024|language=en |date=29 September 2024}}</ref>

In the United States, much of the opposition to the use of IVF is associated with the [[United States anti-abortion movement|anti-abortion movement]], [[Evangelicalism in the United States|evangelicals]], and denominations such as the [[Southern Baptist Convention|Southern Baptists]].<ref name="Miller" /> Current legal opposition to IVF and other fertility treatment access has stemmed from recent court rulings regarding women's reproductive healthcare. In the 2022 [[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]] decision,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=U.S. Supreme Court |title=Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, No. 19-1392 |date=June 24, 2022 |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf}}</ref> the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade<ref>{{cite journal |last1=U.S. Supreme Court |title=Roe v. Wade, No. 70-18 |date=January 22, 1973 |url=https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep410/usrep410113/usrep410113.pdf}}</ref> decision which had federally protected the right to abortion. The 2024 Alabama Supreme Court decision regarding IVF has since threatened IVF access and legality in the U.S. Frozen embryos at an IVF clinic were accidentally destroyed  resulting in a lawsuit during which the attorneys for the plaintiff sought damages under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, setting a state-level precedent that embryos and fetuses are given the same rights as minors/children, regardless of whether they are in utero or not.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Crockin & Nardi |title=Alabama Supreme Court Rules Frozen Embryos are "Unborn Children" and admonishes IVF's "Wild West" treatment |url=https://www.asrm.org/news-and-events/asrm-news/legally-speaking/frozen-embryo-destruction-and--potential-travel-restrictions-for-surrogacy-arrangements2/ |website=American Society for Reproductive Medicine |access-date=October 6, 2024}}</ref> This has created confusion over the status of unused embryos and questions surrounding when life begins. After the court's decision, numerous IVF clinics in Alabama halted IVF treatment services<ref>{{cite web |last1=Sharfstein |first1=Joshua |title=The Alabama Supreme Court's Ruling on Frozen Embryos |url=https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/the-alabama-supreme-courts-ruling-on-frozen-embryos |website=Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health |date=27 February 2024 |access-date=October 6, 2024}}</ref> for fears of civil and criminal liability associated with the new rights granted to embryos. Since, laws proposing embryonic personhood have been proposed in 13 other states,<ref>{{cite web |last1=Krebs |first1=Natalie |title=The push for embryo rights in state legislatures worries IVF patients and doctors |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/06/03/nx-s1-4991097/personhood-rights-embryos-ivf-patients-doctors |website=NPR |access-date=November 11, 2024}}</ref> creating fear of further state restrictions. This ruling raised concerns from [[The National Infertility Association]] and the [[American Society for Reproductive Medicine]] that the decision would mean [[Alabama]]'s bans on abortion prohibit IVF as well,<ref>{{Cite news |date=February 20, 2024 |title=Alabama Supreme Court rules frozen embryos are 'children' under state law |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/02/20/1232815486/alabama-supreme-court-frozen-embryos |work=NPR}}</ref> while the [[University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine|University of Alabama at Birmingham health system]] paused IVF treatments.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Tamsett |first=Isabel Rosales, Christina Maxouris, Meg Tirrell, Chris Youd, Maxime |date=2024-02-21 |title=Days after Alabama's Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos are children, one facility pauses IVF treatment |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/21/us/alabama-ruling-frozen-embryos-facility-pauses-ivf/index.html |access-date=2024-02-22 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref> Eight days later the [[Alabama Legislature|Alabama legislature]] voted to protect IVF providers and patients from criminal or civil liability.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hennessy-Fiske |first=Molly |date=2024-03-01 |title=Alabama lawmakers pass legislation to protect IVF treatment |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/02/29/ivf-protections-alabama-legislature-bill/ |access-date=2024-03-01 |newspaper=Washington Post |language=en-US |issn=0190-8286}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Davis |first=Erin |date=2024-03-01 |title=Bills to protect in vitro fertilization pass in both chambers of Alabama Legislature |url=https://www.wsfa.com/2024/03/01/bills-protect-vitro-fertilization-pass-both-chambers-alabama-legislature/ |access-date=2024-03-01 |website=WFSA |language=en}}</ref>

The [[Right to IVF Act]], federal legislation that would have codified a right to fertility treatments and provided insurance coverage for in vitro fertilisation treatments, was twice brought to a vote in the Senate in 2024. Both times it was blocked by Senate Republicans, of whom only [[Lisa Murkowski]] and [[Susan Collins]] voted to move the bill forward.<ref name="Karni">{{cite news |last1=Karni |first1=Annie |title=Senate Republicans Block I.V.F. Protection Bill a Second Time, Breaking With Trump |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/17/us/politics/ivf-bill-senate-vote.html |access-date=2 October 2024 |work=The New York Times |date=September 17, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Miller">{{cite news |last1=Miller |first1=Maya C. |title=Senate G.O.P. Blocks I.V.F. Access Bill as Democrats Press for Political Edge |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/us/politics/ivf-access-bill-republicans.html |access-date=2 October 2024 |work=The New York Times |date=June 17, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Groves">{{cite news |last1=Groves |first1=Stephen |title=Senate Republicans block bill on women's right to IVF as Democrats make push on reproductive care |url=https://apnews.com/article/senate-ivf-alabama-reproductive-care-460d099153d3faf548e9326ff17dbae6 |access-date=2 October 2024 |work=AP News |date=13 June 2024 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Trachman">{{cite news |last1=Trachman |first1=Ellen |title=Keeping Up With IVF Legal Developments (Summer 2024 Edition) - Above the Law |url=https://abovethelaw.com/2024/06/keeping-up-with-ivf-legal-developments-summer-2024-edition/ |access-date=2 October 2024 |work=Above The Law |date=20 June 2024}}</ref>

Few American courts have addressed the issue of the "property" status of a frozen embryo.  This issue might arise in the context of a divorce case, in which a court would need to determine which spouse would be able to decide the disposition of the embryos.  It could also arise in the context of a dispute between a sperm donor and egg donor, even if they were unmarried.  In 2015, an Illinois court held that such disputes could be decided by reference to any contract between the parents-to-be.  In the absence of a contract, the court would weigh the relative interests of the parties.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://rdklegal.com/frozen-embryos-and-divorce-in-illinois/ | vauthors = Knight RD | title =  Frozen Embryos and Divorce in Illinois |publisher=rdklegal.com |date=30 May 2020 |access-date=11 June 2020}}</ref>

On February 18, 2025, [[President of the United States|President]] [[Donald Trump]] signed an executive order which, according to the White House website, "directs policy recommendations to protect IVF access and aggressively reduce out-of-pocket and health plan costs for such treatments".<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-02-18 |title=Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Expands Access to In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-expands-access-to-in-vitro-fertilization-ivf/ |access-date=2025-02-18 |website=The White House |language=en-US}}</ref> Trump has expressed support for IVF programs in the past, aiming to reduce the cost of such procedures.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Yilek |first=Caitlin |date=2025-02-18 |title=Trump signs executive order aimed at reducing IVF costs - CBS News |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ivf-costs-executive-order/ |access-date=2025-02-18 |website=www.cbsnews.com |language=en-US}}</ref>