F is For Fertilization (And Fool)
It's April Fool's Day, but these headlines are very real.
When I started this column two months ago, I wondered if there would be enough fodder to cover on a weekly basis. As if. Flagging the myriad ways gender rears its head—as both a warning signal of democratic decline and real-time target of authoritarian impulses—is pretty much a full-time gig.
Given today is April Fools’ Day, here are just a few headlines that are, sadly, no joke:
At a White House Women’s History Month celebration last week, Trump quipped he enjoys the nickname “the fertilization president.” (Wait? Who besides him says that? And isn’t such a gathering a DEI violation? Hold that thought.) Rambling and repeating the word “fertilization”—read my prior Contrarian piece about why his IVF executive order is a Trojan Horse for harm—Trump promised “tremendous goodies for women.” The audience hooted and hollered, much like when he designated himself the “father of IVF” on the campaign trail and promised to protect women “whether they like it or not.”
Trump’s supposed vision of IVF flies in the face of a swath of his anti-abortion base, activists and judges gunning to grant frozen embryos the same legal rights as living children. That broader anti-abortion crusade is firing on all cylinders this week:
When the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade in 2022, it did not take long for interstate conflict to ensue. Last week I reported on New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s refusal to extradite a New Paltz-based doctor charged with prescribing abortion pills online to a Louisiana patient under New York’s so-called shield law. Now, in a separate case, New York has rejected Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s demand to enforce a $100,000 civil judgment against the doctor.
At the same time in the Lone Star State, S.B. 8—the notorious “bounty hunter law” the Supreme Court let stand in 2021, effectively outlawing abortion in Texas nine months before issuing the Dobbs decision—is back in court this week. Three claimants, each of whom turned in the same abortion provider who penned a Washington Post op-ed decrying the law, are vying for the $10,000 payout. On April 2, a federal court in Illinois will be asked to decide where the case should be heard.
Also on April 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic – a challenge to South Carolina’s attempt to prevent patients enrolled in Medicaid from using Planned Parenthood clinics. To be clear, the policy does not just affect those seeking abortions; Medicaid already prohibits coverage of most abortions in the state. The policy extends to every other service Planned Parenthood offers, from contraceptive prescriptions to cancer screenings. As reported by Guttmacher Institute, “While anti-abortion advocates will try to frame this case in terms of withholding taxpayer dollars from abortion providers … it is no coincidence that this case is being heard at a moment when Congress is contemplating deep and unprecedented cuts to the Medicaid program overall.” This decision surely will reverberate nationally, whether other states follow South Carolina’s lead or federal agencies seek to further weaponize Medicaid—all in service of Project 2025’s goal to “defund” Planned Parenthood.
The path to “defunding” is a multi-faceted one. Enter DEI. Just last night, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that as of April 1 federal funding under Title X is being withheld from nine Planned Parenthood state affiliates as the organization’s compliance with Trump’s DEI executive order is reviewed, as well as its alleged role in “taxpayer subsidization of open borders.” Several other family planning groups received notice over the weekend and last night that their Title X funding was reduced or denied. According to HHS, grants totaling $27.5 million are frozen and under review.
Among the more painful intrusions of Trump’s DEI agenda is his latest affront, the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” executive order targeting the Smithsonian Institution. In addition to singling out the National Museum of African American History and Culture, it targets the American Women’s History Museum, still years from being the brick and mortar home on the National Mall we deserve. As Trump waxed poetic about fertility at the White House event, he also shouted out Rep. Nancy Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) for her work on the museum. Yet the executive order is an affront to its very essence and spirit, which includes education about LGBTQ activists and artists. (See this delightful story on the museum site about the design of the trans pride flag.) Erasing humans and entire communities from sight or memory hardly lives up to the museum’s stated vision of a “more representative history, a more collective future.”
Closing out the column, today is the day all eyes are on Wisconsin. Voting is underway in what has become the most expensive state judicial election in the nation’s history. Musk has made the race his pet project and a referendum, pouring in millions of dollars and showing up for rallies (including this past weekend when he wore a cheesehead hat—no, not an April Fools’ gag either). Reproductive rights are a central issue for voters and donors, given the 1849 state law banning abortion still on the books and currently before the state Supreme Court. All eyes should also be on the Contrarian for breaking news on the election throughout the day.
Jennifer Weiss-Wolf is executive director of the Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center at NYU School of Law.
 | A guest post by
|
They’re all ignorant regarding assisted reproductive technology ART. The way they’re using scientific terminology isn’t correct at all. Extrauterine means outside the uterus. An extrauterine pregnancy is considered to be ectopic. An intrauterine pregnancy is inside the uterus. Anatomical terms are very specific in usage. A frozen human embryo suspended in a tank of liquid nitrogen could accurately be referred to as an exra-corporal embryo. Which means outside of the body.
The terms embryo or fetus is not specific to the human species. It’s a developmental stage in our existence just like any other mammalian species.The word child refers to a young human much like puppy or kitten refers to a young dog or cat. A cryogenically preserved human embryo is just that. Not a child an embryo or a human embryo to be specific.
This is why the government should not be involved in making policy decisions about this type of matter. These people are usually not scientists or medical professionals or those concerned with religious or faith based issues. Even if they were should they be making these kinds of policy decisions for everyone?
Has anyone told the orange felon he can't be the "fertility president?" That title obviously belongs to his string puller, who fertilizes any woman who crosses his path.