Southern Baptists condemn it, many states are debating it. The battle over IVF in 2024.

Nearly two years after the Supreme Court overturned the right to an abortion, access to in vitro fertilization could be at risk.

IVF is the process of combining a sperm and egg in a laboratory and transferring them to a uterus, commonly used to aid conception for someone with fertility issues. Advocates for the treatment were worried that access to the treatment could come under threat after the Dobbs decision in June 2022.

That fear was somewhat realized in February when the Alabama Supreme Court decided embryos had the legal status of children in a landmark case. Since then, IVF has taken the spotlight in the fight for reproductive rights.

Here is a look back at key moments for IVF access this year:

More: Supreme Court preserves access to widely used abortion medication mifepristone

Why is IVF controversial?

Approximately 2% of births in the U.S. each year come from IVF pregnancies, and it can be a life changing procedure for people experiencing infertility who want to start a family.

But the procedure is opposed by some religious groups, many conservative Christians, who argue that life begins the moment an egg is fertilized and that humans should leave procreation to God not science.

When the first IVF baby was born in 1979, a coalition of anti-abortion groups spoke out against the procedure. But that was after the Roe v. Wade decision, so embryos were treated as private property that the respective egg and sperm donors could decide if they wanted to implant, destroy or pass on the embryo without consequence.

Southern Baptists condemn IVF

On Wednesday, Delegates at the Southern Baptist Convention approved a resolution condemning IVF.

It is a non-binding proclamation that calls on followers to only support reproductive methodologies that affirm the "unconditional value and right to life of every human being, including those in an embryonic stage."

Debate on the floor about the measure was fraught, but the vote could signal similar measures throughout other conservative denominations.

More: Southern Baptists condemn use of IVF in high-profile debate over reproductive rights

Alabama Supreme Court ruled embryos are 'extrauterine children'

The Southern Baptists resolution comes in the wake of a February decision from the Alabama Supreme Court that frozen embryos could be legally treated as children.

The court sided with two couples who sued after their frozen embryos stored in liquid nitrogen were accidentally destroyed. The Alabama high court invoked Christian faith and the Alabama Constitution in their decision which determined they were "extrauterine children." Justices acknowledged the decision could reshape or halt IVF, and major providers temporarily stopped providing the procedure.

The Alabama legislature later passed a bill to protect IVF patients and providers.

But the decision stoked concerns over fetal personhood arguments, which carried into other states despite outcry from both Democrats and Republicans.

Fetal personhood arguments in other states failed

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 23 bills seeking to ban abortion by establishing fetal personhood were introduced in 13 different states in 2024 so far, but none passed even one chamber.

One of those bills in Florida would have allowed a parent to sue for damages in a wrongful death suit of an "unborn child." The bill was sidelined in the wake of Alabama's decision, as the bill sponsor acknowledged there was still "work that needs to be done."

Here are other states where abortion bans by fetal personhood were introduced in 2024:

• Colorado

• Florida

• Iowa

• Illinois

• Indiana

• Kansas

• Massachusetts

• Missouri

• New York

• Oklahoma

• South Carolina

• Virginia

• West Virginia

U.S. Senate Democrats push effort to protect IVF

Ten states, including Alabama, introduced bills to protect IVF providers and patients after the Alabama decision, according to a report by the Guttmacher Institute.

In the weeks after the Alabama ruling, Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss., objected to a federal bill brought forward by Sen. Tammy Duckworth D.-Ill., which would have protected access to the procedure. At the time, Duckworth said in the House floor she would not have been able to have her kids if not for IVF.

But Hyde-Smith said the bill was a "vast overreach."

Democrats tried again, pushing Thursday to hold a vote on IVF protection, which failed again.

Contributing: Liam Adams, John Kennedy, Trevor Hughes, Riley Beggin, USA TODAY NETWORK

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: IVF ban, reproductive rights get new focus amid Southern Baptist vote