U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) recently moved for a unanimous consent vote on her Access to Family Building Act. The legislation would make in-vitro fertilization and other assisted reproductive technologies a statutory right.

IVF has become a point of political strife in recent weeks, largely due to false claims about a recent Alabama Supreme Court decision. Duckworth hoped to capitalize on the news and push for a unanimous consent vote on her bill—a move that, if approved, could have expedited the bill without going through the normal process of review. Thankfully, Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) blocked Duckworth’s motion.

The Access to Family Building Act may seem like a good idea for Republicans who want to protect IVF, but it isn’t. In fact, the bill is arguably the most counterproductive option on the table.

Some Republicans, such as Hyde-Smith, recognize that IVF is legal but also see the value of prudent regulations.

>>> Alabama Embryo Ruling Brings Much-Needed Regulation to Fertility Industry

“I support the ability for mothers and fathers to have total access to IVF and bringing new life into the world,” Hyde-Smith said during a February 28 hearing. “I also believe human life should be protected. These are not mutually exclusive.” Hyde-Smith argued the Access to Family Building Act fails to account for both.

Duckworth’s legislation uses the pretense of protecting access as a smokescreen for enabling an unregulated IVF industry.

If passed, the AFBA would give any adult the statutory right to create a child using any reproductive technology, including the cloning and genetic editing made possible by CRISPR. (Treatments that are unpopular with voters.) Indeed, the bill “pre-empt[s] any state effort to limit such access,” meaning that states would be helpless to pass common-sense regulations for IVF that guard against ethical abuses. Colorado’s prohibition on anonymous gamete donation and Louisiana’s embryo protection law, for example, would be in jeopardy if Duckworth’s bill becomes law.

Moreover, the legislation explicitly overrides the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Without this protection, employers, including religious organizations and churches, could be required to provide IVF coverage for employees against their beliefs. While this would almost certainly be challenged in court, if passed, the AFBA would be the first federal law to exempt itself from this bipartisan religious freedom law introduced by then-U.S. Rep. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Duckworth’s legislation offers one vague caveat to the limitless use of IVF. Under the “Purpose” section of the bill, we find that the only acceptable limitations on IVF are those “imposed on medically comparable procedures.” It’s unclear, however, exactly what procedures the bill’s author has in mind. The fact is that most medical procedures—related to reproductive health or otherwise—are far more regulated than IVF.

>>> Alabama Rules That Embryos Are Children

The Access to Family Building Act is essentially a rebrand of last year’s failed Right to Build Families Act. In her announcement of that legislation, Duckworth claimed the bill would give adults the legal right to “build” a child through IVF. “The choice to build a family,” she said, “is a fundamental right for all Americans.”

Most Republicans and some Democrats rejected the Right to Build Families Act, with its unsavory “build-a-child” language. The Access to Family Building Act shifts the rhetorical game from a “fundamental right” to “a statutory right to access” IVF. The language may be softer, but the intent is the same.

In their attempt to show their support for IVF, some Republicans may be tempted to consider Duckworth’s legislation. They should think twice. It is never a good move to allow temporary political pressures lead to a permanent policy mistake.

It’s possible to favor IVF or other infertility treatments without rejecting all limitations on how they are used or by whom. For their part, Republicans should stand firm in their commitment to hold fertility clinics accountable to provide the best possible care for the embryonic children that parents have entrusted to them.