Bullying Republicans on IVF Hypocrisy Works. Look at Michelle Steel.
At least one Republican representative has finally taken a concrete step to demonstrate support for IVF, after widespread backlash for apparently only paying lip service to the issue.California Representative Michelle Steel revealed Thursday that she has removed herself as a co-sponsor of the Life at Conception Act, which would have established that life begins at conception—and put medical workers at risk of lawsuits if anything happened to an embryo.“As someone who struggled to get pregnant, this is of personal importance so let me be clear,” Steel said in an op-ed in The Orange County Register. She slammed “Washington insiders” for misrepresenting her stance on life.“I believe life begins at conception. I am pro-life with exceptions for rape, incest, and the health and life of the mother. Unlike my opponents, I do not support harmful late-term abortions,” she wrote, using a medically inaccurate term.“Having experienced it firsthand in starting a family, I am an ardent supporter of IVF. I believe nothing is more pro-life than helping families have children and I do not support federal restrictions on IVF. Which is why when a recent court ruling in Alabama raised questions as to whether the Life at Conception Act, if passed, would ban IVF, I removed myself from that bill to not create confusion about my support of IVF.”The Life at Conception Act was introduced first in 2021 with 166 co-sponsors (all Republicans) and then again in 2023 with 124 (again all Republicans). Many opponents of the bill, which has not advanced since, have warned that, if it became law, the legislation would heavily restrict access to in vitro fertilization. The bill and its sponsors have come under increased scrutiny in light of the Alabama Supreme Court ruling establishing that embryos can be classified as human children.Since the ruling, which severely restricted IVF in the state, Republicans have rushed to portray themselves as ardent defenders of the medical procedure, particularly those who represent districts that voted for Joe Biden in 2020. Steel, who is up for reelection in November, is one of those vulnerable Republicans.Steel was quick to post on social media about how much she supports IVF access after the Alabama ruling, and was immediately called out for declining to acknowledge that she was still listed as a co-sponsor of the Life at Conception Act at the time. She did not specify in her op-ed when she removed herself as a co-sponsor.Still, Steel is one of the first Republicans in Congress to take real action to demonstrate her support for IVF. In contrast, Representative Nancy Mace introduced a nonbinding resolution last week expressing support for IVF and calling on elected officials to protect access to the treatment. The measure is nonbinding and does nothing to actually protect IVF. Five of the resolution’s six co-sponsors represent vulnerable districts.
At least one Republican representative has finally taken a concrete step to demonstrate support for IVF, after widespread backlash for apparently only paying lip service to the issue.
California Representative Michelle Steel revealed Thursday that she has removed herself as a co-sponsor of the Life at Conception Act, which would have established that life begins at conception—and put medical workers at risk of lawsuits if anything happened to an embryo.
“As someone who struggled to get pregnant, this is of personal importance so let me be clear,” Steel said in an op-ed in The Orange County Register. She slammed “Washington insiders” for misrepresenting her stance on life.
“I believe life begins at conception. I am pro-life with exceptions for rape, incest, and the health and life of the mother. Unlike my opponents, I do not support harmful late-term abortions,” she wrote, using a medically inaccurate term.
“Having experienced it firsthand in starting a family, I am an ardent supporter of IVF. I believe nothing is more pro-life than helping families have children and I do not support federal restrictions on IVF. Which is why when a recent court ruling in Alabama raised questions as to whether the Life at Conception Act, if passed, would ban IVF, I removed myself from that bill to not create confusion about my support of IVF.”
The Life at Conception Act was introduced first in 2021 with 166 co-sponsors (all Republicans) and then again in 2023 with 124 (again all Republicans). Many opponents of the bill, which has not advanced since, have warned that, if it became law, the legislation would heavily restrict access to in vitro fertilization. The bill and its sponsors have come under increased scrutiny in light of the Alabama Supreme Court ruling establishing that embryos can be classified as human children.
Since the ruling, which severely restricted IVF in the state, Republicans have rushed to portray themselves as ardent defenders of the medical procedure, particularly those who represent districts that voted for Joe Biden in 2020. Steel, who is up for reelection in November, is one of those vulnerable Republicans.
Steel was quick to post on social media about how much she supports IVF access after the Alabama ruling, and was immediately called out for declining to acknowledge that she was still listed as a co-sponsor of the Life at Conception Act at the time. She did not specify in her op-ed when she removed herself as a co-sponsor.
Still, Steel is one of the first Republicans in Congress to take real action to demonstrate her support for IVF. In contrast, Representative Nancy Mace introduced a nonbinding resolution last week expressing support for IVF and calling on elected officials to protect access to the treatment. The measure is nonbinding and does nothing to actually protect IVF. Five of the resolution’s six co-sponsors represent vulnerable districts.
