House GOP navigates IVF backlash by offering symbolic measures with no force of law

WASHINGTON — Earlier this year, Rep. Michelle Steel, a two-term Republican in a competitive district in Orange County, California, co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act with 124 other GOP backers, signaling solidarity with the party’s influential anti-abortion-rights base.

But last month, when the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that embryos created as part of in vitro fertilization are children, it sparked a political dilemma for Steel. IVF has broad support, and her critics were quick to note that the bill she backed could in effect nationalize the Alabama ruling and threaten IVF, a process in which unused embryos are often discarded. The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, giving Congress the power to restrict reproductive rights.

Steel responded by co-sponsoring a nonbinding resolution to declare her support for IVF.

“As someone who struggled with infertility and personally witnessed the miracle of IVF, I strongly believe that IVF should remain protected and accessible,” she said in a statement.

But the Steel-backed Life at Conception Act says legal protections for human beings take effect at “the moment of fertilization.” She also hasn’t signed on to the Access to Family Building Act, which has only Democratic sponsors and would establish tangible legal protections for assisted reproductive technology like IVF.

Steel’s office didn’t respond to messages seeking comment on how she reconciles her pro-IVF stance with backing the Life at Conception Act.

Democrat Derek Tran, a veteran and consumer rights attorney running for Steel’s seat, called Steel a “fraud” for claiming to support IVF. Unlike her, he said he supports the Access to Family Building Act.

“She continues to spill out