Alabama lawmakers have begun scrambling for ways to protect in vitro fertilization services after a state Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos could be considered children under state law. Three providers paused services in the wake of the ruling. Separate proposals were being prepared in the House and Senate that would seek to prevent a fertilized egg from being recognized as a human life or an unborn child until it is implanted in a woman’s uterus. Governor Kay Ivey said the state wants to foster a culture of life and said that includes “couples hoping and praying to be parents who utilize IVF.” In the meantime, Alabama’s GOP Chairman John Wahl says Democrats are using the ruling for political advantage. APR News Director Pat Duggins spoke with Wahl, and here’s that conversation…
PAT DUGGINS-- So basically, I imagine it's been a kind of a raucous 24 hours. I mean, what is that? What is the Alabama GOP stance on what the Supreme Court did?
JOHN WAHL-- Well, you know, I think what has happened here is the Democrat Party and the mainstream media have forgotten that this was a court ruling, based on a case—a case where three groups of parents had their embryos destroyed, through a reckless and tragic act. And I think what we're forgetting is a victim. There are victims in this case, and they deserve justice. And, so I applaud the Alabama Supreme Court for recognizing that parents were victimized, embryos were destroyed, needlessly and recklessly. And they deserve a redress of grievances. So, I think that Alabama Supreme Court made the right decision.
PAT-- Do most people within the party agree with that? Or any dissenters at all? What do you think?
WAHL-- The support has been overwhelming from what we have heard at the party here? You know, in Alabama, the case is better known than it may be nationally, nationally, it's taking this, this curve, just looking at the impact this may have in other areas. In Alabama, people understand it was a case, that there were parents who were involved that this is a specific case, that was coming before the Supreme Court. And they ruled on that that case, and so there was more support, there's more understanding for what this case really was about. And there's more support for it. Because we're actually we actually know what happened.
PAT—I understand that as a State Senator out of Florence, who's going to be writing a bill to try and correct the problem with invitro fertilization in the state. But I'm kind of curious from the terms of political messaging. On the one hand, you want to have IVF available, but on the other hand, the GOP is generally prolife. I mean, any concerns at all about mixed messaging there?
WAHL-- Well, you know, I haven't I have not seen the bill. So, I don't want to address the bill. Specifically, I will say this, the Republican Party is a big party. And we're going to have a wide range of philosophies and views on multiple issues, and this is one of them. That being said, I think it's important that we do recognize that the Republican Party is the party that believes in life. And that's not just on the life of the unborn, it's also the rights and the freedoms of people throughout their entire life. But that carries over, you know, we look at life holistically, and then we want to protect and defend life. And that includes from conception to the grave. So, you know, we'll want to look at that bill. I think this is a bill that we're going to be watching as it moves forward. And I think there is a balance between protecting life and also making sure parents have access to IVF.
PAT—So, getting back to your point about the parents who lost the fertilized embryos because of the hospital's alleged actions-- that's well taken. However, there are those who say that the head of the Supreme Court in Alabama was the one who basically brought the Bible into it and ruled, you know, embryos as people. Do you think the Chief Justice went too far?
WAHL-- I don't I do not think you go too far when you're protecting parents that have been victimized, and when you're standing up for the right to life. So no, I think this is an area where we need don't need to be looking at what may have motivated decision decisions. We need to be looking at whether it was the right decision. And I think protecting victims, and defending life is a key part of American culture. It's what we stand for. We stand for the rule of law, we stand on protecting people from useless and tragic acts. The victims here are those parents who had their embryos destroyed. And I think there needs to be a little bit more compassion for them and less turning this into a political stunt, which the Democrats are trying to make this political. It should not be made political. This should be about justice. And it should be about this parents who were facing a tragedy.
PAT-- I'm sure that the bill sponsor from Florence is trying to right the ship regarding IVF and all that. But what concerns do you have, you know, what you referred earlier to how the GOP has a really, really large constituency, and they don't agree necessarily on everything, that if they do come up with something that tries to make IVF available, they're going to be some people who are really prolife? Who might take askance with that, and you might have some dissent within the party?
WAHL--- Well, I think, you know, I think, let me let me start over there. Sure. I think IVF tends to be done in a little bit different manner, and carefully in a smaller, more planned way that still complies with this court order. I don't think this has to be one or the other, I think we can do it, we can continue to offer parents the options of IVF. We just need to do it more responsibly, and, and be more careful with the process. I believe that's possible, even without a law. But I think a law could be put in place that would help that be clear and help the process moving forward.
PAT-- And, sir, other there are those out there who say that the actions of the Chief Justice kind of point to the notion that okay, here come the Republicans, trying to create a theocracy. Your thoughts on that?
WAHL-- But once again, you know, this would be different if this was coming from the legislative or the executive branch where it was a law or something to be pushed down. This is not this was a court case where parents were asking for redress of grievance. And I think you have to go back to that route. You know, anytime you look at a political decision, or court ruling, you have to go okay, what sparked this decision? And in this case, it was parents asking for justice. And I think I think they are the winners here. And we should, we should actually recognize that understand where this is coming from, and not allow ourselves to be sidetracked by political arguments from an opposing party, who want to use this as a political tool to try to make Alabama look backward or, or forget, kind of forget the issue that was actually at hand and what the case was about.
PAT—Point taken, sir, I know you wanted to keep politics out of this. And I appreciate you indulging me by bringing politics in just one last time. However long it takes to write that bill, it's going to take weeks for it to go through the legislative process get passed, get signed by the governor, which is going to give your critics an awful lot of time to be able to beat up on the party. Any concerns about that?
WAHL-- No, because once again, I think the question here is can parents still have access to IVF? With this court ruling? And I believe the answer is yes. It will have to be done differently. It will have to be more careful. But I believe it is still possible. So, I actually think that that we're going to see institutions in Alabama rethinking their policies, making sure that embryos are protected, kept safe. I think those are potentially good things. So, I don't want to get distracted by the by the political fight. I want to highlight the truth in this case, which I think if the truth is no one, were able to get that out. It's actually this is not a negative for the Republican Party.
PAT-- One last question. The point is that you're not responsible for what UAB does, but you know, at least three Alabama hospitals have shut down IVF treatment right now, has the damage already been done?
WAHL-- Well, I think the exact question needs to be asked of these three institutions, because I think that shows a knee jerk reaction from them, and they're not looking at trying to find a solution. They're, they're just reacting in a negative way to to the court ruling. So, I would actually encourage them to start looking for a commonsense solution that they can work with this ruling and still provide the services to parents who need it.