IVF embryos are people too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But obviously what a disaster all around. This really stinks for Alabama and any other state that decides the same. Disaster.

It’s not a disaster and it doesn’t stink for Alabama. This is EXACTLY what they voted for. I bet a lot of women opened their eyes for the first time today. I can’t imagine being in the middle of an Ivf cycle, thousands of dollars into the process, hearing this and realizing I voted for it. C’est la vie.

Women in Alabama are going to have a hard time finding an OB/GYN for ANYTHING soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But obviously what a disaster all around. This really stinks for Alabama and any other state that decides the same. Disaster.

It’s not a disaster and it doesn’t stink for Alabama. This is EXACTLY what they voted for. I bet a lot of women opened their eyes for the first time today. I can’t imagine being in the middle of an Ivf cycle, thousands of dollars into the process, hearing this and realizing I voted for it. C’est la vie.

Women in Alabama are going to have a hard time finding an OB/GYN for ANYTHING soon.

Not just Alabama. Abortion bans already are driving medical professionals out of abortion ban states. But yes... "embryos are people" Alabama can probably kiss more medical professionals good bye faster. And not just docs...the patients will also prefer other states

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I did read it. The question was how to define "child" since the 1872 law does not.

And do you mean conception or fertilization? Who is pregnant? Who has conceived?

That’s right. The question was can an embryo that is located outside of a womb be considered a child. I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me about this since you claim to have read the decision.

It hinged on the embryos being located outside of a uterus.

Also conception = fertilization. You seem confused.

No, not the same thing. An egg can be fertilized by sperm and never result in a pregnancy. That fertilized egg can just pass right through the uterus without ever implanting. In that case, fertilization has taken place, but conception never occurs.
This ruling insist life begins at FERTILIZATION. As in, before anything ever implants in the uterine wall. There is, indeed, a distinction here.

You are thinking of implantation. Conception is considered by Alabama to be fertilization to be when life begins. If you are going to press this point, be correct.

Alabama believes life begins at their term, conception, which is a religious term, but this is Alabama, which is when the egg is fertilized. Now can we move on please?

No. I can promise you that years of infertility have absolutely taught me the difference between fertilization and implantation.
People who believe life begins at FERTILIZATION (when sperm meets egg and before any sort of cell division occurs) have no idea what they're talking about, and they need some basic education in biology and human reproduction.

You should take this up then with the lawmakers in Alabama because to them it is conception/fertilization.

This ENTIRE case hinged on the question: are embryos outside of a uterus considered children/unborn children/people? A frozen embryo is not in a womb, and thus is not implanted. It is just fertilized, sitting in some nitrogen tank, waiting to be dethawed and transferred. The Alabama Supreme Court last week held that indeed a nonimplanted embryo is a person, that there is no distinction between implanted in a uterus and nonimplanted in a dish. For Alabama, life begins at fertilization.

Dp/ welcome to the thread babe. We literally disagree with it.

[Anonymous]

Now the university of Alabama health system has put a pause on its ivf services.

Wow. Just wow. I can’t believe what is happening to my country.

We are headed right back to the inquisition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But obviously what a disaster all around. This really stinks for Alabama and any other state that decides the same. Disaster.

It’s not a disaster and it doesn’t stink for Alabama. This is EXACTLY what they voted for. I bet a lot of women opened their eyes for the first time today. I can’t imagine being in the middle of an Ivf cycle, thousands of dollars into the process, hearing this and realizing I voted for it. C’est la vie.

Women in Alabama are going to have a hard time finding an OB/GYN for ANYTHING soon.

Not just Alabama. Abortion bans already are driving medical professionals out of abortion ban states. But yes... "embryos are people" Alabama can probably kiss more medical professionals good bye faster. And not just docs...the patients will also prefer other states

The two women I know who just left were in healthcare. Alabama gets what it voted for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if I stop paying for storage is it murder for the IVF company to dispose of them?
What if I die? Do my kids inherit the embryos and have to pay for storage? Can you even inherit people?

This makes it sound like a timeshare that no one can ever get rid of.

[Anonymous]

States with GOP governors and Federal Government should start allowing mothers of “embryo babies” dependent children deductions and day care deductions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I did read it. The question was how to define "child" since the 1872 law does not.

And do you mean conception or fertilization? Who is pregnant? Who has conceived?

That’s right. The question was can an embryo that is located outside of a womb be considered a child. I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me about this since you claim to have read the decision.

It hinged on the embryos being located outside of a uterus.

Also conception = fertilization. You seem confused.

No, not the same thing. An egg can be fertilized by sperm and never result in a pregnancy. That fertilized egg can just pass right through the uterus without ever implanting. In that case, fertilization has taken place, but conception never occurs.
This ruling insist life begins at FERTILIZATION. As in, before anything ever implants in the uterine wall. There is, indeed, a distinction here.

You are thinking of implantation. Conception is considered by Alabama to be fertilization to be when life begins. If you are going to press this point, be correct.

Alabama believes life begins at their term, conception, which is a religious term, but this is Alabama, which is when the egg is fertilized. Now can we move on please?

No. I can promise you that years of infertility have absolutely taught me the difference between fertilization and implantation.
People who believe life begins at FERTILIZATION (when sperm meets egg and before any sort of cell division occurs) have no idea what they're talking about, and they need some basic education in biology and human reproduction.

You should take this up then with the lawmakers in Alabama because to them it is conception/fertilization.

This ENTIRE case hinged on the question: are embryos outside of a uterus considered children/unborn children/people? A frozen embryo is not in a womb, and thus is not implanted. It is just fertilized, sitting in some nitrogen tank, waiting to be dethawed and transferred. The Alabama Supreme Court last week held that indeed a nonimplanted embryo is a person, that there is no distinction between implanted in a uterus and nonimplanted in a dish. For Alabama, life begins at fertilization.

Dp/ welcome to the thread babe. We literally disagree with it.

PP here. I have been on this thread for a while. I too disagree with it, but posters continue to argue with me what they believe and it doesn't matter what they believe or what I believe, this case matters on what the justices of the Alabama Supreme Court believed, and everyone should be concerned with what that could mean on a larger scale.

People are arguing with me but it sounds like they agree with me, so stop blowing in the wind and instead make sure Trump doesn't get re-elected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I provide Medicaid funded services to children and adults with disabilities..... Let me tell you we are going to need billions of more money because of laws like this........

Don't be silly. "Pro-life" means life in utero. Once that life is expelled from the warmth of the womb it's on its own! Taxpayer dollars shouldn't be spent on it, it needs to lift itseslf up by the bootstraps!

[Anonymous]

Will this also put an end to the practice of "compassionate transfers" - when a woman is finished with her family but has leftover blastocysts and doesn't want to donate them or just let them thaw, so they are transferred into her uterus during a time in her cycle they're unlikely to implant. There are a lot of women who do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I provide Medicaid funded services to children and adults with disabilities..... Let me tell you we are going to need billions of more money because of laws like this........

Don't be silly. "Pro-life" means life in utero. Once that life is expelled from the warmth of the womb it's on its own! Taxpayer dollars shouldn't be spent on it, it needs to lift itseslf up by the bootstraps!

Also in Alabama you’ll be on your own to expel that life from the warmth of your womb without the help of medical professionals who have already fled the state.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

The facts of this case sound fake.

[Anonymous]

Can we get life insurance for them? Are they a tax deduction?

[Anonymous]

it's all SO AWFUL
why are the GOP like this?