* Daily Herald…

A Republican senator on Wednesday derailed a bill sponsored by U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth intended to protect access to in vitro fertilization care.

The Hoffman Estates Democrat, backed by colleagues, said it was crucial to pass the measure following the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision that frozen embryos should be considered children. […]

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, a Mississippi Republican, blocked the bill, saying it was a “poison pill” that could legalize cloning among other objections.

“I support the ability for mothers and fathers to have total access to IVF and bringing new life into the world. I also believe human life should be protected,” Hyde-Smith said.

* Sen. Hyde-Smith went on Tony Perkins’ show and the host said this…

This is the first piece of legislation that explicitly waives the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, going back to the 1990s which Chuck Schumer was a supporter of back in the 90s.

But as you pointed out on the Senate floor, this legalizes something that we have been fighting for many years and that is human cloning, which is already prohibited in many states. This would wipe those prohibitions away and legalize human cloning. It allows gene editing, or the so called designer babies, it legalizes this Frankensteinian type of gene of creation of human-animal hybrids, these chimeras.

Really?

* To Sen. Duckworth’s bill…

In this Act:

(1) ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY.

The term ‘‘assisted reproductive technology’’ has the meaning given such term in section 8 of the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 263a–7(1)).

With links added by me, this is from section 8 of the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992…

The term “assisted reproductive technology” means all treatments or procedures which include the handling of human oocytes or embryos, including in vitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, zygote intrafallopian transfer, and such other specific technologies as the Secretary may include in this definition, after making public any proposed definition in such manner as to facilitate comment from any person (including any Federal or other public agency).

Maybe I’m wrong, but I ain’t seeing any cloning or human-animal hybrids there. I mean, the definition in Duckworth’s bill is based on a 1992 law, for crying out loud. You think Congress in 1992 was gonna legalizing cloning and human hybrids?

* Back to Sen. Duckworth’s bill…

(1) INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.—An individual has a statutory right under this Act, including without prohibition or unreasonable limitation or interference (such as due to financial cost or detriment to the individual’s health, including mental health), to—

(A) access assisted reproductive technology;

(B) continue or complete an ongoing assisted reproductive technology treatment or procedure pursuant to a written plan or agreement with a health care provider; and

(C) retain all rights regarding the use or disposition of reproductive genetic materials, including gametes, subject to subsection (c).

(2) HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RIGHTS.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to—

A) perform or assist with the performance of assisted reproductive technology treatments or procedures; and

(B) provide or assist with the provision of evidence-based information related to assisted reproductive technology.

(3) INSURANCE PROVIDER RIGHTS.—A health insurance provider has a statutory right under this Act to cover assisted reproductive technology treatments or procedures.

Not seeing any monkey clones in there, either.

* However, the opponents are right about one thing. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 would be preempted by Duckworth’s bill…

(1) GENERAL APPLICATION.—This Act supersedes and applies to the law of the Federal Government and each State government, and the implementation of such law, whether statutory, common law, or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the date of enactment of this Act, and neither the Federal Government nor any State government shall administer, implement, or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law that conflicts with any provision of this Act, notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.).

* Isabel’s coverage roundup…

* Politico. | A ‘Stunning’ Element of the Alabama IVF Ruling: Mary Ziegler, a leading historian on the abortion battle and a law professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law, says widespread adoption of fetal personhood laws would have far-reaching policy implications, including criminalizing people who receive abortions and banning certain kinds of contraception. Politically, she notes, it’s already straining the relationship between the anti-abortion movement and the Republicans who are eagerly trying to showcase their support for IVF.

* AlterNet | Republicans kill bill to protect IVF after claiming they fully support it: Sen. Duckworth stamped out [Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith]’s claims, saying, “She said at one point the bill would allow for chimeras — human-animal hybrids — it does nothing of the sort. All the bill says if you want to seek reproductive technology you can …” Sen. Hyde-Smith then killed the bill by formally objecting to Duckworth’s bill on Wednesday, which the Illinois Democrat tried to pass via unanimous consent.

* ABC Chicago | Republican blocks Senate Democrats’ push to pass IVF protections nationwide: Duckworth, in her own speech, had called Republicans out for “hypocrisy” as many of them defend access to IVF while simultaneously cheering the fall of Roe v. Wade’s guarantee to abortion access, which Democrats cite as a precedent paving the way for decisions like the Alabama ruling on embryos.

* AP | Republicans block Senate bill to protect nationwide access to IVF treatments: Several clinics in the state announced they were pausing IVF services as they sort out last week’s ruling, which said that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law. The court said that three Alabama couples who lost frozen embryos during an accident at a storage facility could sue the fertility clinic and hospital for the wrongful death of a minor child.

* NYT | Senate Republican Blocks Bill to Protect I.V.F. Treatment: Some Republicans have said they would look at the bill, but most others argued that it should be up to state legislatures — not the federal government — to protect fertility treatments. They sought to cast the Alabama ruling as an outlier and said the Legislature there would surely act soon to protect I.V.F.

* Sun-Times | Sen. Tammy Duckworth, whose daughters were born through IVF, pushes to safeguard access to IVF nationwide: Since the Alabama ruling, Duckworth has been sharing her personal story in several high-profile TV appearances and a news conference Tuesday in the Capitol of being an older woman and wounded Iraq war vet trying to get pregnant. Duckworth will be 56 in March, and her daughters, Abigail and Maile, were born in 2014 and 2018. She was the first sitting senator to give birth while in office. “My girls are my everything,” Duckworth said in her Senate floor speech. “But they likely would’ve never even been born if I hadn’t had access to the basic reproductive rights that Americans — up until recently — had been depending on for nearly a half a century. Because after a decade struggling with infertility after serving in Iraq, I was only able to get pregnant through the miracle of IVF.

* All Things Considered | After Alabama’s ruling, this senator’s bill aims to protect national access to IVF: [Duckworth] spoke with All Things Considered host Ari Shapiro on Tuesday morning about her own experience with fertility treatments, her attempts to build bipartisan support for her bill, and why she thinks state Republican lawmakers in Alabama looking to pass legislation to protect IVF are just “covering their butts.”