Embryo Politics: Implications for Reproductive Rights and Biotechnology

Organizations that describe themselves as “pro-life” have taken their battle well beyond opposition to abortion in recent years. Determined to protect all of what they call "pre-born life," these groups are advocating sweeping legal protections not only for the fetus, but also for the embryo and even the fertilized egg.

Leaders of these organizations – often motivated by fundamentalist or ultraconservative religious beliefs -- oppose emergency contraception and even ordinary birth control pills out of the belief (scientifically unproven) that their use might cause the destruction of a fertilized egg, or zygote. They decry assisted reproductive techniques (such as in vitro fertilization or IVF) as violating religious concepts of “natural” reproduction and oppose pre-implantation genetic screening of IVF embryos because the discovery of genetic defects could lead to a decision not to implant an embryo. They also consider embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning to be "pro-life issues."

Embryos, these groups argue, should not be used for research purposes, even when the resulting treatments could save lives and the embryos otherwise would be discarded by IVF clinics. Their opposition extends to research conducted using embryonic stem cells obtained from embryos created through therapeutic cloning, a process that does not require the joining of sperm and egg.

A MergerWatch briefing paper examines the infusion into public policies of fundamentalist religious beliefs about when personhood begins, noting that these narrowly articulated beliefs often do not comport with scientific facts about the stages of embryonic development or reflect the diversity of religious and ethical views on this topic. The paper reviews emerging state and federal policies proposing to grant legal protections for embryos. Among the subjects explored are the adoption of state laws defining life as beginning at conception for the purposes of according legal protections; federal scientific research policy requiring that embryos be treated as subjects whose welfare must be considered; state legislative bans on embryonic stem cell research and all forms of cloning; and the proliferation of laws that permit health care practitioners and institutions (such as hospitals) to refuse to provide treatment or medications that, in their view, would lead to the destruction of a fetus, an embryo or even a fertilized egg.

The paper articulates the shared implications of these policy trends for reproductive health services and medical research.  It recommends that reproductive rights advocates work together with bioethicists and medical researchers to ensure that fundamentalist religious perspectives about when personhood begins are not allowed to restrict patients’ access to reproductive health services or impede promising medical research. It also suggests that advocates for women’s health should urge increased  oversight of embryonic stem cell research  to ensure that it is conducted in an ethical manner that ensures  informed  consent, safeguards  the  health of women choosing to donate eggs  and  makes resulting treatments equally available to all patients in need. A column based on this paper is posted on the website of the Center for American Progress.