Numerous outlets are running with the claim that scores of House Republicans, by co-sponsoring the “Life at Conception Act,” are trying to outlaw IVF. The truth is that the law would do nothing more than declare a congressional view. Drawing the implications of that view and putting them into practice would require further legislation.

It’s a very short piece of legislation, so you can read it for yourself. Here’s the closest it comes to operative language (which is not very): “The Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. However, nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.” It goes on to say that any member of the human species, in any stage of development, counts as a human being. It also says that it is acting under the 14th Amendment to implement equal protection.

The principle the bill endorses entails that some common IVF practices should be illegal. If IVF clinics could not routinely destroy human embryos, the industry might not be economically viable. (Italy abandoned its effort to impose this restriction on IVF after a few years for this reason.) On that assumption, the thought behind the bill is incompatible with a legally functioning IVF industry.

But the bill itself does not prohibit any IVF practices. It imposes no penalties. It does not instruct prosecutors or police to do anything. It does not even purport to instruct judges to read the 14th Amendment the way the Congress does. (The federal judiciary has made it quite clear it would feel no obligation to follow any such instruction; see City of Boerne v. Flores.) It does not say that all references in the U.S. Code to persons, human beings, etc., should be understood to include human embryos, which would give it force by modifying many legal provisions that have actual bite.

I don’t think bills of this nature are a good practice for legislatures. And opponents of the pro-lifers who signed on are within their rights to say that the co-sponsors have endorsed a principle at odds with some IVF practices. But they would be wrong to say that they have sought to ban IVF, because the bill doesn’t ban anything.