To a US Senator: support the Right to IVF Act and Right to Contraception Act

Personalize. Letters from people who have benefited from IVF treatment, or from people who depend on contraception for medical or family-planning reasons, name the policy concretely. Both bills have polled with very high support; constituent pressure on undecided senators carries weight.

Dear Senator [Last Name],

I’m writing as a constituent in [city/town] to ask you to support the Right to IVF Act and the Right to Contraception Act, and to advance both for floor consideration in the current session.

The 2022 Dobbs ruling did not directly address contraception or IVF. State-level fetal-personhood frameworks have brought both into legal pressure. The 2024 Alabama Supreme Court ruling treating embryos as “extrauterine children” temporarily halted IVF treatment in the state and prompted federal protective legislation. Justice Thomas’s Dobbs concurrence explicitly invited reconsideration of Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 ruling protecting contraception access.

The Right to IVF Act would establish federal statutory protection for IVF treatment regardless of state-level personhood frameworks. It would preempt state laws restricting IVF, expand insurance coverage requirements, and provide federal funding support. The bill has had Senate floor votes in prior sessions; it has not yet been enacted.

The Right to Contraception Act would establish federal statutory protection for contraception access — including IUDs, emergency contraception, and hormonal contraception. The bill has had Senate floor votes; it has not yet been enacted.

Both bills have produced position-clarifying votes from senators who have been uncomfortable taking public positions on these specific reproductive-policy provisions. Polling on both shows large majorities — including majorities of self-identified pro-life voters on IVF — that exceed support for many other reproductive-policy provisions.

[Personalize: name a specific concern if applicable. Examples: “I have benefited from / am pursuing / know someone who has benefited from IVF treatment”; “I depend on contraception for [medical condition / family planning] and the legal uncertainty has affected my ability to plan”; “My family has [specific experience] with [contraception/IVF]”.]

These two bills are among the more politically tractable federal reproductive-policy reforms on the current agenda. The political case is unusually clean. The substantive case rests on continuity with the medical and legal status quo that operated for decades before Dobbs. The opposition rests largely on personhood frameworks that have not been adopted at the federal level and that produce broader consequences (including for IVF) that their proponents have generally not engaged with.

I’d appreciate knowing your position on both bills.

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

[Your name] [Your address]