Rep. Andy Ogles cosponsored federal “personhood” bills in both 2023 and 2025 that define life as beginning at fertilization, with no exceptions for in vitro fertilization (IVF). These Life at Conception Acts would grant constitutional rights to embryos from the moment of fertilization, a framework medical experts warn could limit or even ban IVF and certain forms of birth control. Real-world examples, like the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that froze IVF services, show how personhood laws can disrupt reproductive care. Ogles also declined to support Democratic bills that would have protected access to contraception and IVF nationwide, choosing instead to back personhood measures that threaten both.
- On January 20, 2023, Rep. Andy Ogles was an original cosponsor of H.R. 431 (Life at Conception Act) in the 118th Congress. (congress.gov)
- The text of H.R. 431 declares that constitutional rights are vested in “each human being” at “the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being.” (congress.gov)
- On January 24, 2025, Ogles again cosponsored the reintroduced Life at Conception Act (H.R. 722) in the 119th Congress. (congress.gov)
- The 119th Congress version likewise defines “human being” to include all stages of life “including the moment of fertilization,” continuing the personhood-at-fertilization framework. (congress.gov)
¶ The Life at Conception Act contains no protections for IVF and personhood laws risk restricting IVF in practice
- Reporting on the House Life at Conception Act notes it has no exception for IVF, meaning access to IVF would not be protected if enacted. (washingtonpost.com)
- The American Society for Reproductive Medicine warns that laws defining personhood from fertilization could, intentionally or not, implicate and even ban IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies. (asrm.org)
- After the Alabama Supreme Court ruled frozen embryos are legally “children,” multiple IVF providers paused services due to legal risk, illustrating how personhood-style rules can disrupt or halt IVF. (apnews.com)
- KFF explains that defining pregnancy to begin at fertilization, combined with persistent misinformation about emergency contraception and IUDs, has been used in some settings to restrict access to or payment for those methods. (kff.org)
- ACOG states that “personhood” measures don’t just threaten abortion but can directly impact IVF and allow denial of access to emergency contraception and other contraceptives based on ideology rather than science. (acog.org)
- Conservative policy actors have urged banning IUDs and emergency contraception by labeling them “abortifacients” under fertilization-based definitions, showing how personhood logic can be applied to contraception. (washingtonpost.com)
- Legal experts note that personhood laws could threaten both IVF and some forms of contraception (even as details vary), underscoring the plausibility of such restrictions under fertilization-based personhood. (politifact.com)
¶ Ogles withheld support for federal bills to protect access to contraception and IVF while backing personhood measures
- When House Democrats filed a discharge petition in 2024 to force a vote on the Right to Contraception Act (H.R. 4121), the official signer list shows only Democrats and does not include Ogles. (clerk.house.gov)
- The Right to Contraception Act would have created statutory rights to obtain and provide contraceptives and related information, underscoring the protective policy Ogles declined to help advance. (congress.gov)
- In 2024, House Democrats also launched a discharge petition to force a vote on the Access to Family Building Act to codify a federal right to IVF, a move reported as needing GOP signatures that did not materialize. (katherineclark.house.gov)