Alabama IVF ruling was protested by both sides. There's common ground for reproductive health.

I am a medical student in Iowa, and I care deeply about understanding what my community, both local and national, needs for their reproductive health, particularly as it relates to choice.

Through my experience doing research at an in vitro fertilization clinic in Washington state and serving on the board of a reproductive health clinic in Iowa, I have seen firsthand the importance of access to comprehensive reproductive health care. Though the pro- and anti-choice divide is often polarizing, I think the recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling shows that there is some common ground.

In response to last month's ruling that frozen embryos are afforded the same legal protection as a living human, IVF clinics halted their care as providers struggled to figure out whether they could legally provide fertility care. Americans on both sides of the political divide have been quick to protest the Alabama ruling.

My frozen embryo is in Alabama: An embryo that could be my second child is in Alabama. A court just put that in jeopardy.

As a result, the Alabama Legislature was forced to course correct, albeit mildly. Members realized that to maintain broad support from their voter base, IVF treatment needed to remain accessible.

People rightfully want to be able to utilize a proven scientific technology to create a family when they face challenges.

Believe in access to IVF? You believe in reproductive justice.

People who need IVF treatment make a huge financial and emotional commitment and have often struggled for years. Moreover, IVF is not only used for infertility, but also to treat recurrent miscarriage, prevent passing along genetic disease, grow families for LGBTQ+ people and preserve fertility for those facing cancer.

If we eliminate or severely restrict access to IVF, we are denying their choice to expand their family: a choice that they have not made lightly, and a choice that should be their own. It is just as much an individual’s right to choose to pursue medical care to start a pregnancy as it is to choose to pursue medical care to end a pregnancy.

Abortion rights are top election issue: Reproductive health was an election minefield for Republicans. It got worse with IVF.

This is reproductive justice: Every person – regardless of their income, where they live or gender identity – deserves the autonomy and privacy to make these important decisions for themselves in consultation with their health care provider, without fear of legal reprisal, and most definitely without the interference of ill-informed politicians and jurists.

If you believe individuals should have access to IVF to build families, then you believe in reproductive justice. As we look ahead to the next election cycle with many candidates attacking reproductive health, I urge you to reflect upon and expand your definition of choice.

Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.

Pursuing IVF is pro-choice. Ending an unwanted pregnancy is pro-choice. Caring for living children with love, food, shelter and education is pro-choice.

Every time we make a decision to act in alignment with our reproductive goals, that is pro-choice. And that is a human right worth preserving for everyone.

Annie Galloway is a second-year medical student in Iowa and a graduate of Grinnell College. She is originally from Seattle, Washington. This column first published in the Des Moines Register.

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter.

This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: IVF shows common ground among Democrats, GOP for reproductive health