In vitro fertilization (IVF) has received a lot of attention this year. My colleague Dr. Richard DeClue, our Word on Fire Professor of Theology, recently warned against the positive spin being generated around it. By coincidence, we were both inspired to clarify how morally problematic this dangerous and poorly understood artificial reproductive technology (ART) is, and so this article follows closely on his excellent theological analysis. IVF is a topic you likely won’t hear mentioned during a Sunday homily or see discussed in your parish bulletin, but it’s one that I’m sure we can confidently say impacts many naïve and well-intentioned Catholic couples who, facing the heartbreak of infertility and unaware of IVF’s moral dangers, may be enticed into using it.
It is helpful to see the recent news around IVF in context. IVF appeared in the news for the first time this year in February when the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos were protected in their state under its Wrongful Death of a Minor Act 1872, because, as the court decided, the law applies to “all unborn children without limitation.” The court’s ruling seemed nothing short of miraculous. Many pro-life advocates were both stunned and overjoyed that we have a court in the United States still willing to claim the obvious—that human embryos are unborn children—“without limitation”! However, as we could have anticipated, the blowback was swift. The denizens of our death-dealing culture responded with anger and mockery. If any are unclear about the process, IVF produces many embryos. As Dr. DeClue wrote, those that aren’t used “are discarded or frozen indefinitely, which is contrary to their human dignity.”
Dr. DeClue expertly focused his comments on the immorality of the process of IVF, from the collection of sperm and egg to implantation and selective reduction (abortion) of unwanted embryos in vivo. I want to overlap his comments slightly and continue in defense of those little humans at the embryonic stage of development that were not given a home in their mother’s womb. What happens to them, and what is their moral and legal status?
It is a medically barbaric, deadly, and utilitarian process to manufacture human life at the parents’ fancy.
Biology’s orthodoxy is routinely challenged by scientistic ideology these days, but here’s an example to illustrate the current attitude of many people toward these little humans. Nellie Bowles, a lesbian “married” to journalist Bari Weiss with whom she shares two IVF-conceived children, mocked a comment made by a supporter of the Alabama court’s ruling. In her Friday, February 23, 2024, wrap-up at The Free Press she blamed this person for “giving me a short flu this week, or [as she continued] maybe it was from one of my eight kids.” Those “eight kids” she mockingly joked about were the leftover human embryos the two women continue to house in a rented container of frozen nitrogen—waiting there in the cold just in case she and Bari choose to have another child—which they have. A logical question for Nellie is if those embryos aren’t human; if they aren’t your kids, then what are they? Nellie and Bari now hold one of those eight former embryos in their arms as he coos and fusses and begs for a bottle and a diaper change. I’m sure they love him just like—well—like their child. What changed? Just like an infant child continues its growth trajectory into adulthood, that tiny frozen early human continued his growth trajectory to the loving embrace of his mother’s arms.
To return to politics, predictably the Alabama legislature overrode the court’s decision by passing a bill that provides legal immunity to IVF clinics and practitioners for any wrongdoing. But the story didn’t end in the Alabama legislature. Alarm spread throughout the country that the manufacturing of babies was being challenged by a luddite court, and the U.S. Congress quickly responded at the federal level by attempting to pass legislation that would ensure that Americans continue to have access to IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies. Thankfully, that attempt has so far failed—but federal support for IVF has returned in a surprising way.
IVF has reappeared recently in election news as a carrot—or a political bargaining chip—for voters to consider in the presidential race. One of the candidates suggested that the government pay the approximately $40,000 cost of an IVF round because “we wanna produce babies in this country, right?” This has identified the precise locus of the danger in the IVF conversation, and the point that many fail to grasp. As Dr. DeClue wrote, “Many pro-life advocates are puzzled by the Catholic Church’s teaching that IVF is sinful. After all, the Catholic Church is a world leader in pro-life advocacy. If IVF leads to more babies being born, then why would IVF not be seen as a good thing?”
I have no statistics to prove it, but I think we could agree with reasonable certainty that this is the question many well-intentioned Catholics ask. If IVF makes babies, and babies are good, then isn’t the news that the government will support the procedure for anyone who wants it a positive option for a couple struggling with infertility? The Church needs to respond to this grave moral threat in a forum that clarifies the question for Catholics who may be led to the procedure. Aside from campaign promises, about a dozen states already have an infertility insurance law which mandates employers cover procedures like IVF in their medical insurance plans. IVF tolerates the death of tiny humans as a by-product. We can never forget that in our desire for babies.
When I heard about this case in Alabama, and now again recently, I was reminded of the first test of the legal status of a human embryo conceived by IVF. That case was in 1989 in Maryville, Tennessee. In this case, a couple who had undergone IVF and had frozen their children in a liquid nitrogen nursery were divorcing. The father wanted to destroy the embryos, but the mother was determined to keep them. An attorney named Martin Palmer contacted Dr. Jerome Lejeune (now venerable) in Paris and asked if he would come to the U.S. to give expert testimony at the trial. Lejeune was stunned when he heard the case described to him. He said that it was the judgment of Solomon once again. He agreed to come to the U.S., and within a matter of just a few days, gave landmark testimony that won the case for the mother and saved the embryos—at least in the original decision. The decision was overturned on appeal and the embryos destroyed.
For those who don’t remember their Old Testament history, in the book of Kings (1 Kings 3:16-38), there were two prostitutes who both claimed to be the mother of an infant child. The two had lived in the same house, and both had children about the same age, but one of the children had been smothered and died. The mother of the child who died claimed the other child was hers. Knowing that a mother would do anything to protect the life of her child, even if it meant losing it, Solomon called for a sword and said he would cut the child in half so that each woman could have a part. Of course, the true mother begged Solomon to give the child to the other woman, and in this stunning act, Solomon had revealed the true mother. She was the one willing to lose her child to save its life. The Venerable Jerome Lejeune wrote a book about his experience in Maryville that he titled The Concentration Can.
In the Alabama case, there was no legal fight over custody like in the Maryville case, but a point of law was articulated that is important to understand. The conflict was between parents and the center where their embryos were being stored. A patient at the clinic had found their way into the cryo-nursery, opened the nitrogen container, and removed the embryos. In doing so, the patient burned their hand and dropped the container of embryos, causing their demise. The plaintiffs in the case filed suit under Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, and in a second claim, sued for negligence. The trial court dismissed their claims and ruled that the embryos didn’t fit within the definition of a person or child, and therefore there was no wrongful death. When the case moved to appeal in the Alabama Supreme Court, the decision was reversed in favor of the plaintiffs. The critical part of the decision that many miss or won’t acknowledge is that the court ruled that “the controversial statute claiming that human embryos are, in fact, human children stands, and therefore they must be protected ‘without limitation’” (emphasis added).
The defendants attempted to claim an exception to the Alabama statute cited above by stating that “an unborn child ceases to qualify as a ‘child or person’ if that child is not contained within a biological womb.” The implications here profoundly impact the validity of the in vitro fertilization/assisted reproduction industry and the future of artificial wombs. The culture of death’s journalistic hysteria around the decision distorted the reasonableness of the court, which in its response stated that
All members of this Court, agree that an unborn child is a genetically unique human being whose life begins at fertilization and ends at death. The parties further agree that an unborn child usually qualifies as a “human life,” “human being,” or “person,” as those words are used in ordinary conversation and in the text of Alabama’s wrongful-death statutes. That is true, as everyone acknowledges, throughout all stages of an unborn child’s development, regardless of viability. (page 9, emphasis added)
The Alabama court essentially rearticulated Lejeune’s argument from thirty-five years ago. An engendered human life—i.e., the bringing together of sperm and egg to create a unique and unrepeatable human being—is a human being whether it is within or outside of the womb of its mother. Lejeune’s testimony was pure genius, and I would encourage you to read it in full here.
Many Catholic couples have probably faced the heartbreak of infertility and innocently understood IVF as a blessing to help them create a family.
According to old estimates (2018), at that time, there were over 600,000 human embryos in cryopreservation in the United States—waiting in a “concentration can” for their death or to be allowed to grow in a mother’s womb. Depending on your perspective, those embryos are either future children, an undefinable and inconsequential thing, or medical waste. Many will eventually dehydrate and die. Others will be destroyed when the couple who offered the gametes to engender them decides they don’t want to pay the rent to keep them in the fridge.
Yes, we love babies. Yes, the Church is pro-life, but IVF is not pro-life. It is a medically barbaric, deadly, and utilitarian process to manufacture human life at the parents’ fancy. It typically relegates nature’s gift to a process of quality control where tiny humans are graded by quality, and “defective” products of artificial conception are discarded as waste.
Many Catholic couples have probably faced the heartbreak of infertility and innocently understood IVF as a blessing to help them create a family. A child is a beautiful thing, and their beauty and their parents’ love should in no way be compromised because they were engendered in a way that the Church regards as sinful. Those children have an eternal soul just like all of us. They are destined for eternity with God and share in our humanity in every way. If a decision was made to use IVF in the absence of knowledge of its evil, couples should seek forgiveness and simply love their children as God’s gift. If there are embryos preserved for future use, wise counsel should be secured from a priest or an organization like The National Catholic Bioethics Center.
We live in confusing times. Priests are challenged to preach on artificial reproductive technologies and other topics that are new, unfamiliar, and often uncomfortable. It would be good for those involved in marriage preparation classes to mention the Church’s teaching on these topics in the context of their discussion on the unitive and procreative meaning of marriage.
Since IVF has come up in the presidential campaign, all of us as voters must consider the Church’s moral teaching on this and other critical life issues and vote with a well-informed conscience. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in its document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” teaches, “Issues that directly affect human lives—such as abortion and euthanasia—are fundamental and demand serious consideration.” There are many issues that affect human dignity and concern us, but the bishops say abortion and euthanasia are fundamental issues because without life, there can be no other rights. As our culture moves further and further away from the beliefs and values that define Christians, we have to consider the issues with good information, pray, and ask the Holy Spirit to guide us to the right decision.
***
The U.S. Senate just voted for S.4445—the so-called “Right to IVF Act”—on Tuesday, September 17. Happily, the bill required a 3/5 majority to pass cloture, and it failed. Please pray that these efforts to enshrine a “right” to IVF and other immoral ARTs in law continue to fail.