| Advertisement |
Sept. 17 (UPI) -- The U.S. Senate on Tuesday failed in another attempt to reach a solution to in vitro fertilization protection after Senate Republicans blocked a second try after other failed bids earlier this year. The "Right to IVF Act" failed in a 51-44 vote far below the 60-vote threshold for Senate Democrats to avoid a filibuster. And again breaking with GOP ranks to vote with Democrats were only two Republicans, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
Advertisement
Sens Cory Booker, D-N.J., was a co-sponsor of the bill but joined Sens. Joe Manchin, I-W.Va.; Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Mike Rounds R-S.D., who did not vote.
Introduced again by Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill. and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the legislation aimed to protect in vitro fertilization, or IVF, and make the process more affordable.
As they did the last few times, Senate Republicans were critical of the Democrat-led votes on IVF, again claiming this new attempt was political theater.
"Same song, second verse," Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told Politico after Tuesday's vote. Lankford, who was the GOP leader behind a bipartisan Senate border bill that former President Donald Trump has largely been blamed for killing, said Democrats are "pretending they're doing something on this."
Earlier on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said that if the vote failed, "it will be further proof that Project 2025 is alive and well."
Tuesday's vote came as Trump's shifting IVF and abortion view have gained him criticism from multiple factions, including Republicans. The former president takes credit for the overturning of Roe v. Wade abortion protection via his appointment of three conservative Supreme Court Justices.
"Remember Donald Trump's Project 2025 is tied to the Heritage Foundation, one of the most important and extreme conservative think tanks in the country, and earlier this year, they came out fiercely against today's bill protecting IVF," Schumer, the New York Democrat, said.
A member of GOP Senate leadership, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas criticized Democrats Tuesday for not allowing amendments, describing the day as a "cynical show vote."
Duckworth's bill would have superseded state laws that limit or otherwise interfere with its provision on fertility treatments. Specifically, individuals would have had the right to access fertility treatments and to make decisions about the use of their "reproductive genetic material," otherwise known as embryos, without limitation or interference.
However, both Republicans and Democrats put forward their own versions of a bill over the last several months that they claim will protect IVF, including a past effort by Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and just this week by Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fl.
"Let's be clear," Cruz said on the senate floor ahead of the vote, "there is not a single senator in this chamber on either side of the aisle who wants to ban IVF."
Trump, meanwhile, recently went so far as endorsing a mandate that either insurance companies or the federal government should pay for women's IVF treatment, and claimed he was "a leader on fertilization" which he has caught slack for from big government watchdogs.
"If Donald Trump and Republicans want to protect people's right to access IVF, they can vote yes on it," Duckworth told CBS News prior to the vote. "He's shown that it only takes one sentence from him, and the Republican Party will fall in line behind him."
But as Republicans makes accusations of political show, Democrats contend that without federal protections then any of nearly a dozen states with fetal personhood laws will have the option to move to bar destruction of frozen embryos.
Tuesday's Senate vote in Washington stemmed from February's Alabama Supreme Court ruling where in a 7-2 vote ruled that frozen fertilized embryos are children under state law.
The ruling attracted criticism and worry over the potential legal consequences from civil rights and medical organizations which ultimately compelled Alabama's Republican legislature to enact legislation that again protected IVF in Alabama which was signed in March by Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican and the state's second woman governor.
Tuesday's vote was part of a larger push by Democrats to keep a national spotlight on the issue, particularly as November's election inches closer -- just under 50 days from Tuesday's vote. But the legislative effort was likely to fail from the start, similar to a vote in June on a Senate bill also sponsored by the three same Senate Democrats.
Nearly all Senate Republicans have consistently voted against each bill but Alaska's Murkowski and Collins of Maine. The two moderates crossed party lines, something not out of the ordinary for them, on the issue but largely joined Republicans in criticizing past votes by their Democrats on similar bills and have characterized them as being mostly for political show.
On Monday, Schumer began to apply pressure on Republicans ahead of Tuesday's vote.
"We're already beginning to hear the same tired and predictable and unconvincing excuses from our Republican colleagues looking for a way to vote against IVF protections," Schumer said.
Earlier, speaking directly to his Republican colleagues across the Senate aisle, Schumer had said "if you truly support IVF, then vote for a bill that actually protects IVF through the letter of the law," adding that Republicans "cannot claim to be pro-family on the one hand, while then voting against IVF protection bills on the other hand."
But the dueling political parties continually fail to find a bipartisan solution and continually vote against each other's legislation, with Republicans claiming Democrat bills go too far while Democrats say Republicans do not go far enough.
Earlier, Senate Republican Whip John Thune called Tuesday's vote a "show move" but had expected a "robust conversation" in the Republican conference.
"I don't know of any Republicans not in favor of IVF," Thune, R-S.C., said, adding the "mandate part" is "a challenging issue for lots of reasons, not the least of which is what it does to insurance costs."
"We put a lot of mandates on insurance companies as it is already," he said.
