Trump Judicial Nominee Opposes In Vitro Fertilization

Countless couples have used in vitro fertilization to bring a child into the world. I would know: My wife and I were blessed with a remarkable child after using this common technology.

Now meet Sarah Pitlyk (pictured with Brett Kavanaugh, far right), nominated by President Trump to be a federal judge in Missouri. 

Ms. Pitlyk has never tried a case; nor conducted a deposition (a very common legal interview in most trials); nor conducted a direct exam or cross exam of a witness.

No worries, however: Pitlyk is a special counsel at the Thomas More Society, a pro-life law firm that advocates for religious freedom. She was part of the firm’s team that defended undercover activist David Daleiden, who filmed and selectively edited videos to accuse Planned Parenthood of fetal tissue trafficking back in 2015.

She goes far beyond seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade. As a pro-life lawyer, she favors new frontiers for the legal personhood of embryos. Once confirmed, she is expected to promote the concept of “personhood” of existing embryos, while opposing future uses of in vitro fertilization and surrogacy.

In a case she assisted for the politicized "religious freedom" group involving a dispute between a husband and wife over custody of frozen embryos, she argued that the children of this married couple should be considered as affected parties because they would “have to navigate the murky psychological waters of knowing that they had similarly situated siblings who died at the hand of their father.” 

***

I cannot attribute the following to Ms. Pitlyk: I’m just saying that the case that gave rise to Roe v. Woe was Griswold v. Connecticutt (1965). That state—like others with large Catholic populations— enacted laws to criminalize the sale of all birth control. The Supreme Court ruled that a woman has a constitutional right of privacy regarding her decision to use or not use birth control.

This is not religious freedom. 
If right-to-lifers want to make a personal choice based on religious belief not to use birth control, that is their right, too. But they have no right to deny women and men the basic liberty to use existing reproductive technologies, ranging from condoms to high-tech applications.