A judgment on in vitro fertilization in Alabama highlights state programs for tax exemptions and fetal child support

The recent Alabama Supreme Court decision that children from frozen embryos are legally protected is illustrative of how anti-abortion activists’ support for less drastic legislation and policies is rooted in the belief that a fetus should have the same rights as an adult.

identical to a Georgia statute that permits mothers to request child support retroactively to pay pregnancy-related costs, legislators in at least six other states have put forth identical legislation. Utah passed a pregnancy tax break last year, Georgia likewise permits prospective parents to claim its income tax deduction for dependent children before to delivery, and at least four other states are considering passing similar legislation.

Several dozen bills under the broad heading of supporting fetal personhood are pending in at least 15 states, including one that would criminalize hurting or murdering a baby, according to an Associated Press investigation using the bill-tracking program Plural.

Giving embryos and fetuses the same legal and constitutional rights as the people carrying them has long been an aim of the anti-abortion movement, and this objective was highlighted by the Alabama court judgment. However, proponents of abortion rights believe that legislation offering embryos and fetuses even minimal safeguards may have wider ramifications.

“Any law that is applicable to an individual could subsequently be applied to fetuses,” said Melissa Murray, a legal professor at New York University. “Everything that is accessible under statute law and constitutional law is available.”

Proponents of abortion oppose suggestions on income taxes, child support, or state funding to anti-abortion groups that provide assistance to women and girls in disadvantaged situations. These ideas, they claim, are motivated by compassion. Abortion opponents argue that the assistance might convince some women not to terminate pregnancies, but their tax and child support plans would also benefit women and girls who never contemplate abortion.

Lucrecia Nold, a lobbyist for the Kansas Catholic Conference, said, “The main goal is just to help provide support for mothers and families who need extra support here and then provide support to those who are also helping them, like the pregnancy resource centers.”

A plan would enable prospective parents to claim the state’s $2,250 dependent income tax deduction prior to the birth of a child is before a Senate committee, while a Kansas House committee heard testimony on the child support idea earlier this month. Both are anticipated to be discussed by lawmakers in the next weeks.

Due to a 2019 state Supreme Court ruling holding that access to abortion is protected by the Kansas Constitution as a matter of a basic right to bodily autonomy, Kansas stands alone among states with legislatures controlled by Republicans. Voters resoundingly rejected an amendment placed on the ballot by lawmakers in August 2022 that would have officially stated that the constitution does not give a right to abortion, giving them the authority to severely regulate or outlaw the operation. Following the Dobbs ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court permitting states to outlaw abortion, this was the first of seven state votes in favor of abortion rights.

However, since 2007, Kansas has had a legislation that hasn’t been challenged that permits individuals to be charged separately for crimes against fetuses, such as capital murder, vehicular homicide, and battery. Unborn infants have rights in life, health, and well-being that should be preserved, according to a 2013 state legislation, but it hasn’t been put into effect as a restriction on abortion.

Attorney and policy director Brittany Jones of Kansas Family Voice, an organization that opposed abortion and pushed for the child support provision, said that the state Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling disregarded both statutes.

“This whole freakout that we’re attempting to do something special legally is just absurd,” she said. “We think there is worth in both the mother and the kid. it’s true—I won’t run away from it.

Abortion rights supporters dispute the motivations of proponents of opposing abortion by arguing that more restrictive policies on income taxes and child support don’t really help pregnant women and their families in a significant way.

Abortion providers contended that if the state wanted to assist them, it should think about requiring paid family leave, enhancing access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive care, or growing social assistance like Medicaid. This was said at this month’s Kansas House committee meeting. Nearly 21,000 more income tax filers were expected to be able to claim the dependent deduction, according to the state budget division, although the average savings would only amount to roughly $91 per person.

Elisabeth Smith, state policy and advocacy director of the Center for Reproductive Rights, an organization that advocates for access to abortion, referred to these actions as “window dressing” and said that they, along with the Alabama Supreme Court decision, are components of a concerted national campaign against abortion.

According to Smith, “this is unquestionably a part of the antis’ long-running campaign to normalize that an embryo and a fetus are equal to a living, breathing human being walking around and to perpetuate the stigma associated with abortion.”

However, Mary Zieger, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, who has written six books since 2015 regarding the history of the national abortion debate, stated that state legislation pertaining to fetal personhood could also have an impact on the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, leading them to question whether the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution extend to fetuses and embryos out of historical or customary law.

“And after that, they’re going to say, ‘Hey, see, all these states also have this position,'” she said.

Voters in Alabama changed the state constitution in 2018 to make it clear that the state’s goal is “to ensure the protection of the unborn child’s rights.” Justices referenced the clause in their different conclusions regarding frozen embryos.

At least four states are considering broad fetal personhood bills; Vermont is one of them, and it would certainly pass the Democratic-controlled Legislature if it were to provide rights to fetuses as early as the 24th week of pregnancy.

Writing a book on the movement for fetal rights, Ziegler predicted that people who support access to abortion and in vitro fertilization for infertile women would not support such expansive legislation.

Abortion opponents, according to her, are searching for “unicorn” laws that promote fetal personhood without “truly infuriating voters.”

The ultimate objective, according to her, is some kind of government recognition for fetal personhood, so this is sort of a longer game being played.