Assisted Reproduction and Reproductive Justice

December 18, 2007

Visit the Future Choices: Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Law event page for more information.

In vitro fertilization, pre-implantation genetic testing, cryogenic storage of embryos, and even children with more than two biological parents may once have been the stuff of science fiction. But since the birth of the first “test tube baby” in 1978, assisted reproductive technologies have become reality for more and more people. In those 30 years fertility treatments have bred a slew of legal issues, several of which were addressed in a recent report by Director of the Women’s Health & Rights program Jessica Arons and an event at the Center for American Progress titled “Future Choices: Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Law.”

Jessica Arons’ report explores the legal statutes and precedents that address insurance coverage of infertility treatments, the disposition of frozen embryos, and parentage determinations. But the discussion with Arons, Jackie Payne of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Miriam Yeung of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center and incoming Executive Director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum focused on the implications that these technologies have for future policy and what they mean for the progressive movement.

There are now “infinite ways for us to be families and to have families,” said Yeung. Egg and sperm donors, surrogate mothers, gay and lesbian couples, adoptive parents, single mothers and fathers—all must be considered in the continuing discussion about the future of reproductive rights. In the court cases that Arons surveyed for her paper, many judges bemoaned the lack of legislation dealing with these issues and asked state legislatures to establish more guidelines for future disputes.

These new technologies also may prove challenging for progressive policymakers and activists. Advocacy groups that have historically focused on a single issue—privacy rights, LGBT rights, disability rights, to name a few—are beginning to recognize the advantages of using a reproductive justice framework—which Arons called the combination of reproductive rights and social justice values—to resolve the potential tensions among those movements created by assisted reproductive technologies.

Payne emphasized that this moment is an “opportunity to build a stronger progressive movement.” All panelists agreed that if the different progressive interest groups used their traditional perspectives to respond to the new reproductive technologies, it is likely some of their positions would contradict one another. But if the groups take the time to engage in cross-movement dialogue in order to understand each others’ reactions, they will have an easier time reaching consensus, or at the very least, finding positions that will not hurt the interests of their allies.

“Reproductive justice allows us to ask the bigger questions and consider all the factors,” said Yeung. As more of these technologies become a reality—Yeung cited the Ethan Hawke film “Gattaca” as a prime example of pop culture ideas about reproductive technologies—more questions will arise about the legal issues at play. Genetics will be the next step in the privacy debate, predicted Yeung, and we must use this moment, before the barrage of questions begins, to put in place a thoughtful framework so that these issues do not become divisive.

Ultimately, reproductive justice is an emerging field that will help us address the intersection of progressive policy, science, and activism. There is great potential for compromise, sharing information and ideas across disciplines, and well-researched policy recommendations that will benefit all American families by establishing a clearer, more uniform legal framework that deals appropriately with the complexity of these issues.