In the months since the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization revoked state protections against abortion rights, many new questions about Americans’ reproductive rights have surfaced. In particular, will in vitro fertilization (IVF) and similar assisted reproductive technologies such as surrogacy and donor-assisted conception remain legal and available to all Americans?
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 83,946 of her babies born in 2019 were conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART). The number has doubled in the last decade as couples suffering from infertility and same-sex couples seek more opportunities and opportunities to have children.
While the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision states that “nothing in this opinion should be construed as challenging precedent unrelated to abortion,” many legal experts believe conservatives Consensus drafted by Justice Clarence Thomas contradicts this idea. Texas), and recommended reconsideration of the landmark decision establishing same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges).
What these three cases have in common is substantial due process, a principle that protects fundamental rights (including those not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution) from state intervention.
The right to access assisted reproductive technologies that require the creation and removal of embryos is also strengthened by substantive due process. Judge Thomas’ approval therefore portends a very uncertain legal future for IVF, say King Frederick I and Grace Stokes, a law professor. Melissa Murray, a leading authority on family law, constitutional law, reproductive rights and justice. NYU Law News spoke with Murray to explore Dobbs’ potential impact on access to assisted reproductive medicine and other reproductive rights.