House Bill 76 would create a new Article in Chapter 90 of the North Carolina General Statutes establishing a statutory right to access assisted reproductive technology, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), gamete intrafallopian transfer, and zygote intrafallopian transfer. The bill defines assisted reproductive technology broadly and also defines health care providers and health care services for purposes of the new article.
The core operative provision bars the State and its political subdivisions from prohibiting, unreasonably limiting, or interfering with a patient’s access to assisted reproductive technology. It also protects the ability of health care providers to provide or assist with evidence-based information about assisted reproductive technology and to perform or assist with these procedures. The bill includes a construction clause stating that it does not prevent enforcement of existing health and safety laws governing health care facilities or the provision of health care services, and it would take effect once enacted.
HB76 would add a new layer of statutory protection for fertility treatment access in North Carolina by affirmatively recognizing access to assisted reproductive technology as a protected right. In practice, it would constrain state and local governments from adopting policies that block, narrowly restrict, or interfere with IVF and related procedures, while leaving existing health and safety regulation intact. The bill would affect patients seeking fertility care, physicians and other licensed providers, and licensed health care facilities that offer reproductive services.
There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so the formal legislative sentiment cannot be measured from transcripts or roll calls. Based on the bill’s sponsorship and title, the measure appears to be framed as a pro-access, pro-family, and pro-health-care bill intended to protect fertility treatment availability. The absence of opposition testimony or votes in the available record means there is no documented public controversy in the materials provided.
The main potential point of contention is the scope of the new right and whether it could limit future state regulation of fertility clinics, embryos, or related medical practices. Supporters would likely emphasize patient access, reproductive freedom, and provider autonomy, while critics could focus on the bill’s interaction with broader abortion, embryo, or assisted reproduction policy debates. The bill attempts to address regulatory concerns by expressly preserving enforcement of health and safety laws, but the extent of that carveout could still be a subject of interpretation.