What impact have abortion and IVF had in the 2016 United States presidential race?

Abortion and reproductive freedom remain hotly contentious issues in America today and could become one of the focal points in an ABC debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris later this week.

Democrats view abortion as a key “winning issue” this election cycle since Roe vs. Wade has been overturned; their successes at state levels since this 2022 decision have allowed them to keep both White House and Senate control while possibly taking back both chambers of congress as they look towards November 2018.

Donald Trump recently sent shockwaves through both abortion and in vitro fertilization services by telling NBC News “under the Trump administration, all Americans who require IVF treatment will receive it at no cost”.

Last week, former President Clinton also stated he will not support Florida ballot measure which seeks to overturn state abortion restrictions by effectively precluding and overturning these laws, even though he had expressed displeasure with them due to limited timelines in which women can seek an abortion procedure: six weeks isn’t long enough!

Since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling in 2010, abortion rights have steadily been declining as states take restrictive positions against it.

IVF is also under threat in America; though we’re far removed from China where a court recently refused an unmarried woman access to freeze her eggs as “only married women can use the procedure”.

Still, America is increasingly taking on the characteristics of many nations where women and girls lack this basic right over their bodies, according to UN Women.

Never discussed in abortion debates is how American women are already falling behind when it comes to maternal health. According to The Commonwealth Fund, America continues to have the highest maternal death rates among high-income nations despite recent reductions since COVID-19 pandemic; within America this rate is highest for Black women despite many deaths being potentially preventable.”

Restrictions on women’s reproductive freedom stand out, because they go against established medicine, according to the American Journal of Public Health; in doing so they place “women’s psychological and medical wellbeing at risk”.

Two women in Texas have filed complaints against hospitals for refusing them treatment for ectopic pregnancies after abortion was banned with some exceptions in 2022. Ectopic pregnancies cannot survive outside of the womb and must be addressed immediately according to Cleveland Clinic experts.

According to Kaiser Family Foundation research, pregnant women seeking abortion who reside in states that prohibit or limit them must travel out-of-state or try obtaining medication abortion pills via telehealth appointment from another clinic outside their own state – these options may not always be accessible; some women may resort to self-managed abortions while some will still not be able to secure an abortion and must continue with an unwanted pregnancy.”

The Guttmacher Institute estimates that, if abortion were banned across all 50 states, maternal mortality would increase by 24 percent; among non-Hispanic Black people this increase would reach 39 percent.

Controversies regarding IVF treatments are further restricting women’s options. Since Alabama Supreme Court’s landmark decision characterizing embryos created through IVF as children protected under legal statute, anti-abortion lawmakers have struggled to formulate positions which allow room for IVF treatments in legislation.

Critics contend that while IVF as an idea may be acceptable, current standard-of-care practices relating to egg stimulation and embryo cryopreservation may not. Egg stimulation creates more embryos than can safely be implanted into mothers; hence most are later abandoned and destroyed by IVF clinics.

Other organizations are more outspoken; for example, in June the Southern Baptist Convention voted against IVF altogether.

Religiously and politically-inspired laws limiting reproductive care expose physicians to civil or criminal liability while undermining family-building goals that anti-abortion advocates purport to support.

Reports out of Alabama and Texas indicate that patients are now adapting their IVF treatment protocols by moving embryos to states with less stringent abortion laws.

Abortion and IVF remain key electoral issues as more states make abortion ballot-ready. Now is the time for us all to educate ourselves, take stock of ourselves as individuals, reflect and consider what kind of society and choices we want for ourselves, our daughters and all women and girls in general.

Susan Crockin is a Senior Scholar of National and Global Health Law with the O’Neill Institute and adjunct Professor at Georgetown Law Center. Tara D. Sonenshine served as Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy under President Clinton before going on to serve as Senior Nonresident Fellow of Tufts Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy.