Article

After Dobbs: Exploring Dobbs' Impact on In Vitro Fertlization

---

Abstract

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court held that the right to abortion was not protected by the U.S. Constitution, overturning Roe v. Wade and its progeny, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. As a result, the Supreme Court returned the decision to restrict or prohibit abortion to the states. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a complex series of procedures, involving the removal of fertilized eggs and sometimes the destruction or storage of “extra” fertilized eggs. IVF is used to help prevent genetic problems and assist with the conception of a child for couples experiencing infertility. This paper explores Dobbs’ impact on IVF. Specifically, whether states can prohibit IVF practices when the state determines that life begins at fertilization. The paper begins with a discussion on the historical issue of abortion leading up to Dobbs. Then, the paper will introduce and explain IVF. It focuses on the possibility that states may impose restrictive laws over numerous pregnancy-related procedures, including IVF. Then, I analyze three distinct aspects of restrictive laws on IVF: the potentiality and viability argument, their constitutionality, and their probable impact on the nation. I posit that considering these three facets, along with the state government’s burden to meet strict scrutiny, state bans of IVF in their attempt to regulate abortion are unconstitutional because it is in violation of the fundamental right to procreate.

Keywords: dobbs, ivf, in vitro