IVF embryos are people too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I started trying to conceive I had two chemical pregnancies where I got a positive test but at my first ultrasound there was just an empty sac. No fetal pole, no fetus. So were these children? No, I don't think so. It took two ultrasounds at 6 and 8 weeks for each pregnancy to confirm that no fetus developed and in fact my pregnancy didn't even come close to producing a child.

When I did IVF I transferred two embryos each time, and both times only one fetus developed. In my IVFs they gave me photos of the pair of embryos both times...beautiful balls of cells that would become an amniotic sac, a placenta, and a baby, and only one did each time. How many children did I have? Not 6. I had 2...in middle school now and very real. I didn't in fact "lose" any children because only 2 of those embryos became a baby or had a heartbeat.

So true. This Alabama ruling is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire back story is completely nuts. I am not sure if it was a set up or what. It is actually somewhat common for mistakes to be made and have embryos accidentally destroyed by fertility clinics (most common scenario seems to be a power failure). There are multitudes of lawsuits that ensue over them.

But this case seems sketchy and there isn't much press at all about what happened. No info on the person who committed the act (man or woman, who were they, why were they in the hospital, were they ever caught), was anyone ever charged? From google it seems it happened in December 2020 and that the destroyed embryos were laying on the floor for some time before they were discovered. And if the person burned their hands, how were they not discovered? Didn't they need medical treatment?

Too many weird questions IMO.

Good point. And I read that all the couples who sued had actually already had kids through IVF several years ago (these were leftover embryos). So they possibly weren’t trying to ever do IVF again. I wonder if they were tricked or somehow convinced to pursue this wrongful death lawsuit.

They probably found hardcore forced birthers. Once they had the children they wanted, they no longer cared and were willing to be used as political pawns in order to spite women’s rights.

It doesn't make sense, because this specific fertility clinic had in their contract that all of the plaintiffs signed that any embryo stored past 5 years would be destroyed, so they are ok with "murder" under those circumstances. I believe 1 of the 3 couples did not have a live birth yet from the clinic (the couple who had filed solo and eventually had their case consolidated with the other 2). Apparently to file under this Wrongful Death of a Minor act one must file suit within 6 months of the death, which is why the suits came around the same time. But I am very suspicious that some special interest group didn't convince these families to file under this act.

Further, the property angle, which is a separate argument, that the frozen embryos were property and not "unborn children" has not be settled, it was remanded back to the lower court. The arguments go in a certain order: 1) these embryos qualify as unborn children and therefore are included in the act, 2) if you claim that they aren't children because they are stored outside of a womb that would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because you're discriminating based on womb and non womb, 3) if they aren't considered children, they are property and damages should be established for that. The Alabama Supreme Court held that because they quickly decided #1 is true, that the court doesn't need to make any findings for any of the other arguments, case remanded and closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I started trying to conceive I had two chemical pregnancies where I got a positive test but at my first ultrasound there was just an empty sac. No fetal pole, no fetus. So were these children? No, I don't think so. It took two ultrasounds at 6 and 8 weeks for each pregnancy to confirm that no fetus developed and in fact my pregnancy didn't even come close to producing a child.

When I did IVF I transferred two embryos each time, and both times only one fetus developed. In my IVFs they gave me photos of the pair of embryos both times...beautiful balls of cells that would become an amniotic sac, a placenta, and a baby, and only one did each time. How many children did I have? Not 6. I had 2...in middle school now and very real. I didn't in fact "lose" any children because only 2 of those embryos became a baby or had a heartbeat.

So true. This Alabama ruling is absurd.

Because they have lawyers and politicians, ruling and making laws and not doctors....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I started trying to conceive I had two chemical pregnancies where I got a positive test but at my first ultrasound there was just an empty sac. No fetal pole, no fetus. So were these children? No, I don't think so. It took two ultrasounds at 6 and 8 weeks for each pregnancy to confirm that no fetus developed and in fact my pregnancy didn't even come close to producing a child.

When I did IVF I transferred two embryos each time, and both times only one fetus developed. In my IVFs they gave me photos of the pair of embryos both times...beautiful balls of cells that would become an amniotic sac, a placenta, and a baby, and only one did each time. How many children did I have? Not 6. I had 2...in middle school now and very real. I didn't in fact "lose" any children because only 2 of those embryos became a baby or had a heartbeat.

According to Alabama, you would be brought up on four counts of murder.

Welcome to the GOP Dystopia!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is good that this decision affects rich white people and men. That is the only way for those in charge to become outraged.

I hate the assumption that only "rich white people" pursue IVF. My online infertility support group consisted of about 30 women all undergoing IVF at the same time. Ages ranged from mid 20s to early 40s, and we ran the gamut from lower middle class to upper middle class. And this wasn't DCUM-area "middle class", either.
Most of us had some form of insurance coverage to make costs more affordable, but I know several women who had taken out loans to pay for it or received meds donated to their clinics.

I’m willing to bet that the people taking advantage of IVF in Alabama are, on the whole, more well off than the people affected most dramatically by the abortion bans. The fact that they had extra money, access to insurance, or the ability to access unsecured lines of credit to pay for reproduction pretty much proves that. We are comparing them against people who can’t afford to traverse state lines for a $400 medical procedure that would spare them much expense, misery, and physical harm.

Maybe now the comfortably well off will finally understand that the Talibangelists are coming for them as well. That they are women, ergo breedstock or barren, and their color and their wealth will not protect them. I know it’s easy to say “just leave the state” but that’s not really possible for ongoing fertility treatments in a way that abortion is.

The Talibangelists want middle class people desperate for babies, babies which they will happily sell them if they do the right thing in their eyes - stay home, commit to raise as Christian, make large “donations”. IVF was part of the plan all along. The plan is Irish orphanage level of misery and corruption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts of the original case are beyond bizarre and seem like some bad movie. A “patient” at a fertility clinic “eloped” and broke into the room that stored frozen embryos, broke into the storage and grabbed several frozen embryos (in their containers) with their bare hands. Since that was basically a serious freezer, the eloper’s hands were severely burned immediately from the freezing metal and so the eloper dropped all of the embryos he/she was carrying and them broke onto the floor. When the breach was discovered the frozen embryos essentially had died.

So this was a joint lawsuit from 3 of the affected families who lost embryos for “unlawful death”.

It seems more like destruction of property rather than 'unlawful death' would have been the proper route here, unless you have a the zealous of a religious fanatic.

So being a nerdy lawyer I was very curious about this case. It seems to be very Alabama law specific and hinged on whether the term "unborn child" of Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act includes embryos kept outside a uterus or "extrauterine children" aka frozen embryos kept in a freezer. Alabama already defines embryos as children because they're ruled life begins at conception but now we are talking about frozen embryos not inside a woman's uterus.

In this crazy case, the fertility clinic had their storage facility located inside a hospital and someone some unauthorized crazy person was able to walk into the storage room, open the special cryogenic freezer, pick up several embryos out of that freezer and drop them all over the floor (because the severe cold burned their hands so as a reflex they dropped them). So the embryos died. The case doesn't go into more of those facts like why were the door and freezer unlocked, who was this nut job, why did they do it, etc.

The families want to collect punitive damages under the Alabama Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, which is why they argued the embryos were children and not property. Hospital and Fertility Clinic argued that there an exception to this act because these embryos were not inside a uterus, but plaintiffs argued that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (I think this point is key). I wouldn't be surprised to see that argued in the future. The court stated it didn't keep to decide that part because "unborn children are children under the Act, without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics;" and because of that simple ruling it won't decide any of the other parts, case over.

Here is a link to the decision. https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/c93db586-ec08-4f14-a6ba-a149967e68b0/docketentrydocuments/bb88f2bf-19ca-498f-9fe2-f754d36c0ff2

So if SCOTUS takes this up does it open a giant barn door to fetal personhood nationwide? That’s an untenable mess for every American woman.

It will be interesting because the Alabama Wrongful Death of a Minor Act does not define "child," so they needed to look to legislative intent, and well, the law was written in 1872, when embryos outside the womb was not even a whisper of a thought in the most creative sci-fi author's brain. So, it literally could not have intended to cover this situation. So we shall see how this gets interpreted by this Court and their alleged views of construction. There is a lot of judicial contortion in this opinion already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I started trying to conceive I had two chemical pregnancies where I got a positive test but at my first ultrasound there was just an empty sac. No fetal pole, no fetus. So were these children? No, I don't think so. It took two ultrasounds at 6 and 8 weeks for each pregnancy to confirm that no fetus developed and in fact my pregnancy didn't even come close to producing a child.

When I did IVF I transferred two embryos each time, and both times only one fetus developed. In my IVFs they gave me photos of the pair of embryos both times...beautiful balls of cells that would become an amniotic sac, a placenta, and a baby, and only one did each time. How many children did I have? Not 6. I had 2...in middle school now and very real. I didn't in fact "lose" any children because only 2 of those embryos became a baby or had a heartbeat.

Very good points. This is why, although I technically say: life does begin at implantation of a healthy embryo, lawyers and politicians need to stay out of these medical matters completely, because these matters are too nuanced and too complicated. This needs to be between a woman and her doctors.

[Anonymous]

UAB pauses IVF procedures
https://www.al.com/news/2024/02/uab-pauses-in-vitro-fertilization-due-to-fear-of-prosecution-officials-say.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

UAB pauses IVF procedures
https://www.al.com/news/2024/02/uab-pauses-in-vitro-fertilization-due-to-fear-of-prosecution-officials-say.html

As someone who went through IVF to conceive, I can't imagine being a patient in the middle of a retrieval cycle and finding this out. Good lord. Not just from the heartache of having a cancelled cycle, but also the financial/insurance coverage implications, as well. What a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The facts of the original case are beyond bizarre and seem like some bad movie. A “patient” at a fertility clinic “eloped” and broke into the room that stored frozen embryos, broke into the storage and grabbed several frozen embryos (in their containers) with their bare hands. Since that was basically a serious freezer, the eloper’s hands were severely burned immediately from the freezing metal and so the eloper dropped all of the embryos he/she was carrying and them broke onto the floor. When the breach was discovered the frozen embryos essentially had died.

So this was a joint lawsuit from 3 of the affected families who lost embryos for “unlawful death”.

It seems more like destruction of property rather than 'unlawful death' would have been the proper route here, unless you have a the zealous of a religious fanatic.

So being a nerdy lawyer I was very curious about this case. It seems to be very Alabama law specific and hinged on whether the term "unborn child" of Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act includes embryos kept outside a uterus or "extrauterine children" aka frozen embryos kept in a freezer. Alabama already defines embryos as children because they're ruled life begins at conception but now we are talking about frozen embryos not inside a woman's uterus.

In this crazy case, the fertility clinic had their storage facility located inside a hospital and someone some unauthorized crazy person was able to walk into the storage room, open the special cryogenic freezer, pick up several embryos out of that freezer and drop them all over the floor (because the severe cold burned their hands so as a reflex they dropped them). So the embryos died. The case doesn't go into more of those facts like why were the door and freezer unlocked, who was this nut job, why did they do it, etc.

The families want to collect punitive damages under the Alabama Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, which is why they argued the embryos were children and not property. Hospital and Fertility Clinic argued that there an exception to this act because these embryos were not inside a uterus, but plaintiffs argued that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (I think this point is key). I wouldn't be surprised to see that argued in the future. The court stated it didn't keep to decide that part because "unborn children are children under the Act, without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics;" and because of that simple ruling it won't decide any of the other parts, case over.

Here is a link to the decision. https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/c93db586-ec08-4f14-a6ba-a149967e68b0/docketentrydocuments/bb88f2bf-19ca-498f-9fe2-f754d36c0ff2

So if SCOTUS takes this up does it open a giant barn door to fetal personhood nationwide? That’s an untenable mess for every American woman.

It will be interesting because the Alabama Wrongful Death of a Minor Act does not define "child," so they needed to look to legislative intent, and well, the law was written in 1872, when embryos outside the womb was not even a whisper of a thought in the most creative sci-fi author's brain. So, it literally could not have intended to cover this situation. So we shall see how this gets interpreted by this Court and their alleged views of construction. There is a lot of judicial contortion in this opinion already.

Read the decision. It discusses this. There is well established case law that unborn children fall under this act and that Alabama recognizes life beginning at conception, so that embryos are children. I believe it cites cases starting in 2011. This was not the issue for this current case. The issue was did the law have any "unwritten exception" for embryos that were not in a womb/outside a uterus such as the ones being stored. Defendants argued there was an unwritten exception, Plaintiffs argued there isn't one. Court agreed with Plaintiffs and stated in their decision that for them it was pretty open and shut.

[Anonymous]

Are IUDs allowed in Alabama? Because under the rational that embryos are considered people and life at conception, since most IUDs make the uterus unhospitable for implantation, many pro lifers equate IUDs as a form of abortion.

Here we go....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

UAB pauses IVF procedures
https://www.al.com/news/2024/02/uab-pauses-in-vitro-fertilization-due-to-fear-of-prosecution-officials-say.html

Give us more than two candidate's to vote for in a national election. The two-party system is the problem. If there were no guarantees in Congress, maybe Americans wouldn't be so frustrated and checked out.

I feel like I have to chose between killing Palestinian children or embryos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

UAB pauses IVF procedures
https://www.al.com/news/2024/02/uab-pauses-in-vitro-fertilization-due-to-fear-of-prosecution-officials-say.html

Give us more than two candidate's to vote for in a national election. The two-party system is the problem. If there were no guarantees in Congress, maybe Americans wouldn't be so frustrated and checked out.

I feel like I have to chose between killing Palestinian children or embryos.

No, you don't. Do you honestly think Trump, or any Republican, would prevent the killing of Palestinian children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

UAB pauses IVF procedures
https://www.al.com/news/2024/02/uab-pauses-in-vitro-fertilization-due-to-fear-of-prosecution-officials-say.html

Give us more than two candidate's to vote for in a national election. The two-party system is the problem. If there were no guarantees in Congress, maybe Americans wouldn't be so frustrated and checked out.

I feel like I have to chose between killing Palestinian children or embryos.

This is the weirdest comment. What do you think Trump will do in regard to Palestinian children, help them, bring them to safety?
How on Earth do you get that idea? Trump will look the other way no matter whose children are killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

UAB pauses IVF procedures
https://www.al.com/news/2024/02/uab-pauses-in-vitro-fertilization-due-to-fear-of-prosecution-officials-say.html

Give us more than two candidate's to vote for in a national election. The two-party system is the problem. If there were no guarantees in Congress, maybe Americans wouldn't be so frustrated and checked out.

I feel like I have to chose between killing Palestinian children or embryos.

Sorry, but Trump would be even worse on the Palestinian kids. You know it, I know it, we all know it. You think the guy who moved the Embassy to Jerusalem would save the Palestinian kids?

Go read your Game Theory from PoliSci 101. You'll be able to figure out how to best vote in November in a winner-take-all election.

The two party duopoly is a natural feature of winner-take-all elections, like the Electoral College.