That depends on what happens politically in the multiple states that have strict restrictions on abortion, or that have already or plan to enact constitutional amendments that grant legal personhood from the time of conception forward.
If other states follow the Alabama court, either judicially or legislatively, the IVF enterprise in those states could be similarly severely impacted. It is estimated that 2% of live births in the US annually result from IVF. That’s almost 100,000 live births a year. So it’s a large number of people that would be facing serious challenges to their hopes of becoming biological parents.
From a national standpoint, this Alabama ruling is potentially a building block in the most conservative interpretation of the right-to life-agenda. Eventually if you get more and more states substantiating the legal position that full legal personhood begins at conception—all set in motion by the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—you will have the basis for a national fetal personhood law and then a full abortion law at the federal level.
But as we can see from the Alabama legislature’s rapid response to the court’s ruling, and statements from former President Trump and other Republican politicians, clamping down on IVF is not a popular position. IVF is a way to bring children into the world, it’s pro-natalist.
The people who brought the case in Alabama had all sought out IVF to become pregnant. I would not think they would want to see IVF become unavailable, or much more expensive and burdensome through multiple rounds. For many in the public, it’s an incoherent position to be pro-life and anti-IVF.
IVF brings babies into the world, it doesn’t destroy them. The challenge for pro-life lawmakers will be finding a way to reconcile support for IVF as it is currently practiced, which in many instances results in embryos being destroyed, with the belief that human life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized.