“Fetal Personhood Trend Amplifies Employer Health Plan Liability,” Bloomberg Law
In an article for Bloomberg Law, Partner Katie Johnson and Associates Illyana Green and Mary Marshall provide insight into the new legal debate over fetal personhood in Alabama following the state’s Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos have the same rights as people.
With the recent turmoil over fetal personhood in Alabama—just as when Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022—employers are again uncertain how the ever-changing reproductive rights landscape affects their operations, employees, and legal risk.
Events in Alabama have launched a new legal debate that also impacts employee health-care provisions. In February, the Alabama Supreme Court held that frozen embryos have the same rights as people, temporarily halting in vitro fertilization care in the state. The decision highlights how existing and proposed laws in several states could be expansively interpreted by state courts to further develop the concept of fetal personhood.
Although IVF care has resumed in Alabama after the state legislature shielded IVF providers from liability, the ruling illustrates the power of these laws in regulating reproductive care.
In wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , which repealed Roe v. Wade, fetal personhood—or the idea that the fetus is a legal person entitled to the same rights as a child—has quickly gone from a marginal theory to a mainstream project.
Currently, at least 11 states have such broad definitions of “person” in their state laws that reproductive rights activists have warned they could arguably be read to grant rights to fetuses. Missouri law, for example, requires that “unborn children at every stage of development” be afforded “all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of” the state. Fourteen more states are considering personhood bills, demonstrating the wide reach of the entities pushing for these changes.
The Alabama decision may catalyze prosecutors, state officials, and private litigants in the 11 states with fetal personhood laws to capitalize on the potential to expand application of state criminal laws. They could move to curtail access not only to abortion care, but also to medical care for pregnancy loss, IVF, and even some forms of contraception.
Although fetal personhood bills pose no direct threat to IVF care (outside of Alabama) or birth control yet, the Alabama case makes clear that such a threat could develop quickly. These issues were raised at an April 26 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where witnesses expressed concern over the effects on reproductive health choices, especially regarding IVF access, in the 11 states with fetal personhood laws.
Employers should think carefully about employer health plan options, because the Alabama decision underscores that theories of accomplice liability applied to abortion could similarly be applied in the IVF context to impose liability on employers.
Activist state attorneys general may argue that companies with health-care plans that cover IVF procedures have aided and abetted in the destruction of embryos (which frequently occurs as part of the IVF process). This mimics the arguments some state attorneys general made about employer liability when companies began to cover travel costs for employees who were forced to leave their home states to obtain abortion care.
Employers also should think carefully about the location of genetic material in terms of their health plans. Certain states could require all viable embryos to be stored and maintained, even after IVF treatment is complete—either expressly or by implication of its personhood law.
As an example, a Louisiana law makes it illegal to “intentionally” destroy a “viable in vitro fertilized human ovum,” which the law defines as a “juridical person.” If a company’s benefit plan covers IVF, this could have significant cost implications.
Employers should continue monitoring proposed bills and state enforcement actions and closely review their health plan policies to ensure compliance. Though measures to protect IVF have been proposed at the national level, and the topic has become a major issue in congressional campaigns, no federal bill has gained traction. This indicates reproductive rights likely will continue to be regulated by a patchwork of state laws.
Employers also will have to monitor court developments. On April 1, the Florida Supreme Court allowed a 6-week abortion ban to go forward on grounds that undermine privacy protections and pave the way for states to further intrude on IVF and contraception usage.
Despite activity in recent weeks, it is important to keep in mind that the fetal personhood movement is just the start of a long-term project. After Roe, there was a similar piecemeal retrenchment that culminated in its repeal almost 50 years after it became law.
Political fallout from the Alabama decision is as noteworthy as the decision itself. The backlash was swift. Within weeks of the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision, the state legislature passed a bill providing civil and criminal immunity for IVF to service providers and receivers. The governor signed it into law within an hour of it passing in the Alabama Senate.
Even with quick action from state legislators, on March 26, Marilyn Lands, a Democrat who campaigned on reproductive rights, won a special election and flipped a seat in the Alabama House. Lands’ success at the polls has been widely attributed to the court’s decision.
While there is a concerted effort to expand fetal personhood, it has for the moment proven to be electorally unpopular. We expect this to limit its expansion during the 2024 election season.
But in the same way that abortion restrictions have expanded at the state level—despite polling indicating strong support for abortion—the political unpopularity of fetal personhood may not halt its rise.
The case is LePage v. Ctr. for Reprod. Med. PC, Ala., No. SC-2022-0515, 2/16/24.
This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.
Reproduced with permission. Published April 8, 2024. Copyright 2024 Bloomberg Industry Group 800-372-1033. For further use please visit https://www.bloombergindustry.com/copyright-and-usage-guidelines-copyright/
With the recent turmoil over fetal personhood in Alabama—just as when Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022—employers are again uncertain how the ever-changing reproductive rights landscape affects their operations, employees, and legal risk.
Events in Alabama have launched a new legal debate that also impacts employee health-care provisions. In February, the Alabama Supreme Court held that frozen embryos have the same rights as people, temporarily halting in vitro fertilization care in the state. The decision highlights how existing and proposed laws in several states could be expansively interpreted by state courts to further develop the concept of fetal personhood.
Although IVF care has resumed in Alabama after the state legislature shielded IVF providers from liability, the ruling illustrates the power of these laws in regulating reproductive care.
In wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , which repealed Roe v. Wade, fetal personhood—or the idea that the fetus is a legal person entitled to the same rights as a child—has quickly gone from a marginal theory to a mainstream project.
Currently, at least 11 states have such broad definitions of “person” in their state laws that reproductive rights activists have warned they could arguably be read to grant rights to fetuses. Missouri law, for example, requires that “unborn children at every stage of development” be afforded “all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of” the state. Fourteen more states are considering personhood bills, demonstrating the wide reach of the entities pushing for these changes.
The Alabama decision may catalyze prosecutors, state officials, and private litigants in the 11 states with fetal personhood laws to capitalize on the potential to expand application of state criminal laws. They could move to curtail access not only to abortion care, but also to medical care for pregnancy loss, IVF, and even some forms of contraception.
Although fetal personhood bills pose no direct threat to IVF care (outside of Alabama) or birth control yet, the Alabama case makes clear that such a threat could develop quickly. These issues were raised at an April 26 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where witnesses expressed concern over the effects on reproductive health choices, especially regarding IVF access, in the 11 states with fetal personhood laws.
Employers should think carefully about employer health plan options, because the Alabama decision underscores that theories of accomplice liability applied to abortion could similarly be applied in the IVF context to impose liability on employers.
Activist state attorneys general may argue that companies with health-care plans that cover IVF procedures have aided and abetted in the destruction of embryos (which frequently occurs as part of the IVF process). This mimics the arguments some state attorneys general made about employer liability when companies began to cover travel costs for employees who were forced to leave their home states to obtain abortion care.
Employers also should think carefully about the location of genetic material in terms of their health plans. Certain states could require all viable embryos to be stored and maintained, even after IVF treatment is complete—either expressly or by implication of its personhood law.
As an example, a Louisiana law makes it illegal to “intentionally” destroy a “viable in vitro fertilized human ovum,” which the law defines as a “juridical person.” If a company’s benefit plan covers IVF, this could have significant cost implications.
Employers should continue monitoring proposed bills and state enforcement actions and closely review their health plan policies to ensure compliance. Though measures to protect IVF have been proposed at the national level, and the topic has become a major issue in congressional campaigns, no federal bill has gained traction. This indicates reproductive rights likely will continue to be regulated by a patchwork of state laws.
Employers also will have to monitor court developments. On April 1, the Florida Supreme Court allowed a 6-week abortion ban to go forward on grounds that undermine privacy protections and pave the way for states to further intrude on IVF and contraception usage.
Despite activity in recent weeks, it is important to keep in mind that the fetal personhood movement is just the start of a long-term project. After Roe, there was a similar piecemeal retrenchment that culminated in its repeal almost 50 years after it became law.
Political fallout from the Alabama decision is as noteworthy as the decision itself. The backlash was swift. Within weeks of the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision, the state legislature passed a bill providing civil and criminal immunity for IVF to service providers and receivers. The governor signed it into law within an hour of it passing in the Alabama Senate.
Even with quick action from state legislators, on March 26, Marilyn Lands, a Democrat who campaigned on reproductive rights, won a special election and flipped a seat in the Alabama House. Lands’ success at the polls has been widely attributed to the court’s decision.
While there is a concerted effort to expand fetal personhood, it has for the moment proven to be electorally unpopular. We expect this to limit its expansion during the 2024 election season.
But in the same way that abortion restrictions have expanded at the state level—despite polling indicating strong support for abortion—the political unpopularity of fetal personhood may not halt its rise.
The case is LePage v. Ctr. for Reprod. Med. PC, Ala., No. SC-2022-0515, 2/16/24.
This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.
Reproduced with permission. Published April 8, 2024. Copyright 2024 Bloomberg Industry Group 800-372-1033. For further use please visit https://www.bloombergindustry.com/copyright-and-usage-guidelines-copyright/
Related Attorneys
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
In an article for Bloomberg Law, Partner Katie Johnson and Associates Illyana Green and Mary Marshall provide insight into the new legal debate over fetal personhood in Alabama following the state’s Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos have the same rights as people.
With the recent turmoil over fetal personhood in Alabama—just as when Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022—employers are again uncertain how the ever-changing reproductive rights landscape affects their operations, employees, and legal risk.
Events in Alabama have launched a new legal debate that also impacts employee health-care provisions. In February, the Alabama Supreme Court held that frozen embryos have the same rights as people, temporarily halting in vitro fertilization care in the state. The decision highlights how existing and proposed laws in several states could be expansively interpreted by state courts to further develop the concept of fetal personhood.
Although IVF care has resumed in Alabama after the state legislature shielded IVF providers from liability, the ruling illustrates the power of these laws in regulating reproductive care.
In wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , which repealed Roe v. Wade, fetal personhood—or the idea that the fetus is a legal person entitled to the same rights as a child—has quickly gone from a marginal theory to a mainstream project.
Currently, at least 11 states have such broad definitions of “person” in their state laws that reproductive rights activists have warned they could arguably be read to grant rights to fetuses. Missouri law, for example, requires that “unborn children at every stage of development” be afforded “all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of” the state. Fourteen more states are considering personhood bills, demonstrating the wide reach of the entities pushing for these changes.
The Alabama decision may catalyze prosecutors, state officials, and private litigants in the 11 states with fetal personhood laws to capitalize on the potential to expand application of state criminal laws. They could move to curtail access not only to abortion care, but also to medical care for pregnancy loss, IVF, and even some forms of contraception.
Although fetal personhood bills pose no direct threat to IVF care (outside of Alabama) or birth control yet, the Alabama case makes clear that such a threat could develop quickly. These issues were raised at an April 26 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where witnesses expressed concern over the effects on reproductive health choices, especially regarding IVF access, in the 11 states with fetal personhood laws.
Employers should think carefully about employer health plan options, because the Alabama decision underscores that theories of accomplice liability applied to abortion could similarly be applied in the IVF context to impose liability on employers.
Activist state attorneys general may argue that companies with health-care plans that cover IVF procedures have aided and abetted in the destruction of embryos (which frequently occurs as part of the IVF process). This mimics the arguments some state attorneys general made about employer liability when companies began to cover travel costs for employees who were forced to leave their home states to obtain abortion care.
Employers also should think carefully about the location of genetic material in terms of their health plans. Certain states could require all viable embryos to be stored and maintained, even after IVF treatment is complete—either expressly or by implication of its personhood law.
As an example, a Louisiana law makes it illegal to “intentionally” destroy a “viable in vitro fertilized human ovum,” which the law defines as a “juridical person.” If a company’s benefit plan covers IVF, this could have significant cost implications.
Employers should continue monitoring proposed bills and state enforcement actions and closely review their health plan policies to ensure compliance. Though measures to protect IVF have been proposed at the national level, and the topic has become a major issue in congressional campaigns, no federal bill has gained traction. This indicates reproductive rights likely will continue to be regulated by a patchwork of state laws.
Employers also will have to monitor court developments. On April 1, the Florida Supreme Court allowed a 6-week abortion ban to go forward on grounds that undermine privacy protections and pave the way for states to further intrude on IVF and contraception usage.
Despite activity in recent weeks, it is important to keep in mind that the fetal personhood movement is just the start of a long-term project. After Roe, there was a similar piecemeal retrenchment that culminated in its repeal almost 50 years after it became law.
Political fallout from the Alabama decision is as noteworthy as the decision itself. The backlash was swift. Within weeks of the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision, the state legislature passed a bill providing civil and criminal immunity for IVF to service providers and receivers. The governor signed it into law within an hour of it passing in the Alabama Senate.
Even with quick action from state legislators, on March 26, Marilyn Lands, a Democrat who campaigned on reproductive rights, won a special election and flipped a seat in the Alabama House. Lands’ success at the polls has been widely attributed to the court’s decision.
While there is a concerted effort to expand fetal personhood, it has for the moment proven to be electorally unpopular. We expect this to limit its expansion during the 2024 election season.
But in the same way that abortion restrictions have expanded at the state level—despite polling indicating strong support for abortion—the political unpopularity of fetal personhood may not halt its rise.
The case is LePage v. Ctr. for Reprod. Med. PC, Ala., No. SC-2022-0515, 2/16/24.
This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.
Reproduced with permission. Published April 8, 2024. Copyright 2024 Bloomberg Industry Group 800-372-1033. For further use please visit https://www.bloombergindustry.com/copyright-and-usage-guidelines-copyright/
With the recent turmoil over fetal personhood in Alabama—just as when Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022—employers are again uncertain how the ever-changing reproductive rights landscape affects their operations, employees, and legal risk.
Events in Alabama have launched a new legal debate that also impacts employee health-care provisions. In February, the Alabama Supreme Court held that frozen embryos have the same rights as people, temporarily halting in vitro fertilization care in the state. The decision highlights how existing and proposed laws in several states could be expansively interpreted by state courts to further develop the concept of fetal personhood.
Although IVF care has resumed in Alabama after the state legislature shielded IVF providers from liability, the ruling illustrates the power of these laws in regulating reproductive care.
In wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , which repealed Roe v. Wade, fetal personhood—or the idea that the fetus is a legal person entitled to the same rights as a child—has quickly gone from a marginal theory to a mainstream project.
Currently, at least 11 states have such broad definitions of “person” in their state laws that reproductive rights activists have warned they could arguably be read to grant rights to fetuses. Missouri law, for example, requires that “unborn children at every stage of development” be afforded “all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of” the state. Fourteen more states are considering personhood bills, demonstrating the wide reach of the entities pushing for these changes.
The Alabama decision may catalyze prosecutors, state officials, and private litigants in the 11 states with fetal personhood laws to capitalize on the potential to expand application of state criminal laws. They could move to curtail access not only to abortion care, but also to medical care for pregnancy loss, IVF, and even some forms of contraception.
Although fetal personhood bills pose no direct threat to IVF care (outside of Alabama) or birth control yet, the Alabama case makes clear that such a threat could develop quickly. These issues were raised at an April 26 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where witnesses expressed concern over the effects on reproductive health choices, especially regarding IVF access, in the 11 states with fetal personhood laws.
Employers should think carefully about employer health plan options, because the Alabama decision underscores that theories of accomplice liability applied to abortion could similarly be applied in the IVF context to impose liability on employers.
Activist state attorneys general may argue that companies with health-care plans that cover IVF procedures have aided and abetted in the destruction of embryos (which frequently occurs as part of the IVF process). This mimics the arguments some state attorneys general made about employer liability when companies began to cover travel costs for employees who were forced to leave their home states to obtain abortion care.
Employers also should think carefully about the location of genetic material in terms of their health plans. Certain states could require all viable embryos to be stored and maintained, even after IVF treatment is complete—either expressly or by implication of its personhood law.
As an example, a Louisiana law makes it illegal to “intentionally” destroy a “viable in vitro fertilized human ovum,” which the law defines as a “juridical person.” If a company’s benefit plan covers IVF, this could have significant cost implications.
Employers should continue monitoring proposed bills and state enforcement actions and closely review their health plan policies to ensure compliance. Though measures to protect IVF have been proposed at the national level, and the topic has become a major issue in congressional campaigns, no federal bill has gained traction. This indicates reproductive rights likely will continue to be regulated by a patchwork of state laws.
Employers also will have to monitor court developments. On April 1, the Florida Supreme Court allowed a 6-week abortion ban to go forward on grounds that undermine privacy protections and pave the way for states to further intrude on IVF and contraception usage.
Despite activity in recent weeks, it is important to keep in mind that the fetal personhood movement is just the start of a long-term project. After Roe, there was a similar piecemeal retrenchment that culminated in its repeal almost 50 years after it became law.
Political fallout from the Alabama decision is as noteworthy as the decision itself. The backlash was swift. Within weeks of the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision, the state legislature passed a bill providing civil and criminal immunity for IVF to service providers and receivers. The governor signed it into law within an hour of it passing in the Alabama Senate.
Even with quick action from state legislators, on March 26, Marilyn Lands, a Democrat who campaigned on reproductive rights, won a special election and flipped a seat in the Alabama House. Lands’ success at the polls has been widely attributed to the court’s decision.
While there is a concerted effort to expand fetal personhood, it has for the moment proven to be electorally unpopular. We expect this to limit its expansion during the 2024 election season.
But in the same way that abortion restrictions have expanded at the state level—despite polling indicating strong support for abortion—the political unpopularity of fetal personhood may not halt its rise.
The case is LePage v. Ctr. for Reprod. Med. PC, Ala., No. SC-2022-0515, 2/16/24.
This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.
Reproduced with permission. Published April 8, 2024. Copyright 2024 Bloomberg Industry Group 800-372-1033. For further use please visit https://www.bloombergindustry.com/copyright-and-usage-guidelines-copyright/
Related Attorneys
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Podcasts
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Discusses Fintech Enforcement, Debanking, and Regulatory Risk on Fintech Layer Cake Podcast
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon was featured on the Fintech Layer Cake podcast, where she discussed how fintech enforcement and prosecution actually work in practice, and what exposes fintechs and banks to regulatory risk.
July 15, 2026
Publications
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act, Private Equity Law Report
Partners Charles Riely, Todd C. Toral, and Martin Glass authored a guest article for Private Equity Law Report examining the US Supreme Court's June 11, 2026, ruling on the scope of private rights of action under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
July 14, 2026
Publications
Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.
July 7, 2026
Publications
In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision
Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.
July 1, 2026
Event
Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026