IVF embryos are people too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone here with their panties in a bunch need to read about what this ruling IS.... and what it is NOT.

It is an easy read.

https://apnews.com/article/alabama-frozen-embryos-ivf-storage-questions-1adbc349e0f99851973a609e360c242c

It allows people to sue for the wrongful death of their ivf embryos. That has pretty broad potential implications. You better believe that my panties are in a bunch. The gop needs to get out of people’s private lives.

[Anonymous]

If you put a baby in a freezer, it will die, because it is a person.
An embryo can be frozen and thawed, because it is not a person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone here with their panties in a bunch need to read about what this ruling IS.... and what it is NOT.

It is an easy read.

https://apnews.com/article/alabama-frozen-embryos-ivf-storage-questions-1adbc349e0f99851973a609e360c242c

You seem to be willfully ignoring these parts of the very story you posted:

While the decision was narrow, some legal scholars think there’s potential for wider impact.

Mary Ziegler, the Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law, said the Alabama ruling didn’t go as far as saying embryos have all the same rights as people — at least not yet.

“The court was pretty clear that they didn’t have to say whether the fetuses or embryos had constitutional rights. They were just saying that for the purposes of this wrongful death law they’re persons or children,” Ziegler said.

However, she said the court’s decision may be read more widely.

“I think people in Alabama are rightly expecting that this is the tip of the iceberg though, and this ruling will lead to more down the road,” Ziegler said.

Legal scholars expect more cases to develop on rights for embryos.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Non of this is a surprise. When Dobbs fell that was the end of private protected reproductive decisions. Now the focus needs to be on the long battle ahead to get these rights back and protected for all Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone here with their panties in a bunch need to read about what this ruling IS.... and what it is NOT.

It is an easy read.

https://apnews.com/article/alabama-frozen-embryos-ivf-storage-questions-1adbc349e0f99851973a609e360c242c

It allows people to sue for the wrongful death of their ivf embryos. That has pretty broad potential implications. You better believe that my panties are in a bunch. The gop needs to get out of people’s private lives.

True, but on the other hand Biden is old so both sides share the blame equally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone here with their panties in a bunch need to read about what this ruling IS.... and what it is NOT.

It is an easy read.

https://apnews.com/article/alabama-frozen-embryos-ivf-storage-questions-1adbc349e0f99851973a609e360c242c

In theory the ruling is narrow. In practice, not so much. Nobody wants the liability here. The ambiguity is intentional and has its own preferred outcome.

Exactly. These clinics do not need to offer IVF with any ambiguity at all and they will not.

People were told that once Roe v Wade was abolished, the GOP was coming for IVF and birth control next.

IVF is reliant on embryos not being considered fully fledged human beings. And here we are.

[Anonymous]

Everyone is so focused on the frozen embryos. Anyone who has gone through IVF knows that fertilized eggs and eventual embryos are typically lost throughout the process. For those who aren't experienced, here's a primer:
After roughly 2 weeks of injections, a women undergoes egg retrieval, in which a needle is inserted through the vaginal wall and into follicles within the ovaries to collect eggs (day 0). Immediately after the retrieval, those eggs that are mature are combined with sperm, often through a process known as ICSI (intercytoplasmic sperm injection), in the hopes that those mature eggs will be fertilized. In my experience, we received a call from our RE on day 2, once he had the report from the embryology lab, to let us know how many eggs were fertilized and beginning to undergo cell division. Once embryos reach the blastocyst stage (day 5 or 6), that is when they are typically frozen or occasionally returned to the woman's body via a fresh transfer. So there are 5 whole days there where some of those fertilized eggs are lost in the process, never reaching a mature enough stage for transfer or freezing.
If the Alabama ruling holds, and they consider life to begin at the moment of fertilization, then that could potentially cause issues with the entire process, not just the frozen embryos. Would they hold someone accountable for the absolutely normal attrition of fertilized eggs in the embryology lab on days 1-4? What about if something happens to an embryo once it is thawed for transfer? Is someone criminally negligent there for authorizing the thaw/transfer process?
This ruling is a can of worms, and there are most definitely some in the Republican party who 100% want IVF and even some other, less invasive, infertility treatments, to go away. That's where they plan on finding homes for all of the unwanted babies - the "barren" will "just adopt".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone here with their panties in a bunch need to read about what this ruling IS.... and what it is NOT.

It is an easy read.

https://apnews.com/article/alabama-frozen-embryos-ivf-storage-questions-1adbc349e0f99851973a609e360c242c

In theory the ruling is narrow. In practice, not so much. Nobody wants the liability here. The ambiguity is intentional and has its own preferred outcome.

Exactly. These clinics do not need to offer IVF with any ambiguity at all and they will not.

People were told that once Roe v Wade was abolished, the GOP was coming for IVF and birth control next.

IVF is reliant on embryos not being considered fully fledged human beings. And here we are.

And here is not where we want to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is so focused on the frozen embryos. Anyone who has gone through IVF knows that fertilized eggs and eventual embryos are typically lost throughout the process. For those who aren't experienced, here's a primer:
After roughly 2 weeks of injections, a women undergoes egg retrieval, in which a needle is inserted through the vaginal wall and into follicles within the ovaries to collect eggs (day 0). Immediately after the retrieval, those eggs that are mature are combined with sperm, often through a process known as ICSI (intercytoplasmic sperm injection), in the hopes that those mature eggs will be fertilized. In my experience, we received a call from our RE on day 2, once he had the report from the embryology lab, to let us know how many eggs were fertilized and beginning to undergo cell division. Once embryos reach the blastocyst stage (day 5 or 6), that is when they are typically frozen or occasionally returned to the woman's body via a fresh transfer. So there are 5 whole days there where some of those fertilized eggs are lost in the process, never reaching a mature enough stage for transfer or freezing.
If the Alabama ruling holds, and they consider life to begin at the moment of fertilization, then that could potentially cause issues with the entire process, not just the frozen embryos. Would they hold someone accountable for the absolutely normal attrition of fertilized eggs in the embryology lab on days 1-4? What about if something happens to an embryo once it is thawed for transfer? Is someone criminally negligent there for authorizing the thaw/transfer process?
This ruling is a can of worms, and there are most definitely some in the Republican party who 100% want IVF and even some other, less invasive, infertility treatments, to go away. That's where they plan on finding homes for all of the unwanted babies - the "barren" will "just adopt".

This case is a very basic principle and decision: the term embryos is all encompassing whether that embryo is located inside a womb or not. Under Alabama law, an embryo is a person. Period; end of story; case closed. I mean that’s really all there is to it. The court’s opinion was that the case was very simple. There is no exception. They wouldn’t care if the embryo was on Mars. Embryo = life = child.

The basic premise could be used to legislate against IUDs and other forms of birth control that interfere with an embryo, for having a miscarriage, for the medical courier dropping the delivery of the frozen embryos and causing them to be damaged, for a power company to be liable for all the embryos that die during a power failure of the cryogenic storage, for the ICSI tech/embryologist damaging an embryo…the possibilities are endless.

Technically it seems under this ruling the only type of IVF that would be legal would be single egg retrieval which is rarely done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is so focused on the frozen embryos. Anyone who has gone through IVF knows that fertilized eggs and eventual embryos are typically lost throughout the process. For those who aren't experienced, here's a primer:
After roughly 2 weeks of injections, a women undergoes egg retrieval, in which a needle is inserted through the vaginal wall and into follicles within the ovaries to collect eggs (day 0). Immediately after the retrieval, those eggs that are mature are combined with sperm, often through a process known as ICSI (intercytoplasmic sperm injection), in the hopes that those mature eggs will be fertilized. In my experience, we received a call from our RE on day 2, once he had the report from the embryology lab, to let us know how many eggs were fertilized and beginning to undergo cell division. Once embryos reach the blastocyst stage (day 5 or 6), that is when they are typically frozen or occasionally returned to the woman's body via a fresh transfer. So there are 5 whole days there where some of those fertilized eggs are lost in the process, never reaching a mature enough stage for transfer or freezing.
If the Alabama ruling holds, and they consider life to begin at the moment of fertilization, then that could potentially cause issues with the entire process, not just the frozen embryos. Would they hold someone accountable for the absolutely normal attrition of fertilized eggs in the embryology lab on days 1-4? What about if something happens to an embryo once it is thawed for transfer? Is someone criminally negligent there for authorizing the thaw/transfer process?
This ruling is a can of worms, and there are most definitely some in the Republican party who 100% want IVF and even some other, less invasive, infertility treatments, to go away. That's where they plan on finding homes for all of the unwanted babies - the "barren" will "just adopt".

This case is a very basic principle and decision: the term embryos is all encompassing whether that embryo is located inside a womb or not. Under Alabama law, an embryo is a person. Period; end of story; case closed. I mean that’s really all there is to it. The court’s opinion was that the case was very simple. There is no exception. They wouldn’t care if the embryo was on Mars. Embryo = life = child.

The basic premise could be used to legislate against IUDs and other forms of birth control that interfere with an embryo, for having a miscarriage, for the medical courier dropping the delivery of the frozen embryos and causing them to be damaged, for a power company to be liable for all the embryos that die during a power failure of the cryogenic storage, for the ICSI tech/embryologist damaging an embryo…the possibilities are endless.

Technically it seems under this ruling the only type of IVF that would be legal would be single egg retrieval which is rarely done.

What clinic would do even that? These are businesses. They are in the business of helping infertile people get pregnant and have babies but they are not going to risk the business to do IVF in this dangerous Alabama environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is so focused on the frozen embryos. Anyone who has gone through IVF knows that fertilized eggs and eventual embryos are typically lost throughout the process. For those who aren't experienced, here's a primer:
After roughly 2 weeks of injections, a women undergoes egg retrieval, in which a needle is inserted through the vaginal wall and into follicles within the ovaries to collect eggs (day 0). Immediately after the retrieval, those eggs that are mature are combined with sperm, often through a process known as ICSI (intercytoplasmic sperm injection), in the hopes that those mature eggs will be fertilized. In my experience, we received a call from our RE on day 2, once he had the report from the embryology lab, to let us know how many eggs were fertilized and beginning to undergo cell division. Once embryos reach the blastocyst stage (day 5 or 6), that is when they are typically frozen or occasionally returned to the woman's body via a fresh transfer. So there are 5 whole days there where some of those fertilized eggs are lost in the process, never reaching a mature enough stage for transfer or freezing.
If the Alabama ruling holds, and they consider life to begin at the moment of fertilization, then that could potentially cause issues with the entire process, not just the frozen embryos. Would they hold someone accountable for the absolutely normal attrition of fertilized eggs in the embryology lab on days 1-4? What about if something happens to an embryo once it is thawed for transfer? Is someone criminally negligent there for authorizing the thaw/transfer process?
This ruling is a can of worms, and there are most definitely some in the Republican party who 100% want IVF and even some other, less invasive, infertility treatments, to go away. That's where they plan on finding homes for all of the unwanted babies - the "barren" will "just adopt".

This case is a very basic principle and decision: the term embryos is all encompassing whether that embryo is located inside a womb or not. Under Alabama law, an embryo is a person. Period; end of story; case closed. I mean that’s really all there is to it. The court’s opinion was that the case was very simple. There is no exception. They wouldn’t care if the embryo was on Mars. Embryo = life = child.

The basic premise could be used to legislate against IUDs and other forms of birth control that interfere with an embryo, for having a miscarriage, for the medical courier dropping the delivery of the frozen embryos and causing them to be damaged, for a power company to be liable for all the embryos that die during a power failure of the cryogenic storage, for the ICSI tech/embryologist damaging an embryo…the possibilities are endless.

Technically it seems under this ruling the only type of IVF that would be legal would be single egg retrieval which is rarely done.

Single egg retrieval is exactly what the concurring opinion detailed. Try one egg only for each Ivf cycle to avoid having multiple embryos/children in a freezer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is so focused on the frozen embryos. Anyone who has gone through IVF knows that fertilized eggs and eventual embryos are typically lost throughout the process. For those who aren't experienced, here's a primer:
After roughly 2 weeks of injections, a women undergoes egg retrieval, in which a needle is inserted through the vaginal wall and into follicles within the ovaries to collect eggs (day 0). Immediately after the retrieval, those eggs that are mature are combined with sperm, often through a process known as ICSI (intercytoplasmic sperm injection), in the hopes that those mature eggs will be fertilized. In my experience, we received a call from our RE on day 2, once he had the report from the embryology lab, to let us know how many eggs were fertilized and beginning to undergo cell division. Once embryos reach the blastocyst stage (day 5 or 6), that is when they are typically frozen or occasionally returned to the woman's body via a fresh transfer. So there are 5 whole days there where some of those fertilized eggs are lost in the process, never reaching a mature enough stage for transfer or freezing.
If the Alabama ruling holds, and they consider life to begin at the moment of fertilization, then that could potentially cause issues with the entire process, not just the frozen embryos. Would they hold someone accountable for the absolutely normal attrition of fertilized eggs in the embryology lab on days 1-4? What about if something happens to an embryo once it is thawed for transfer? Is someone criminally negligent there for authorizing the thaw/transfer process?
This ruling is a can of worms, and there are most definitely some in the Republican party who 100% want IVF and even some other, less invasive, infertility treatments, to go away. That's where they plan on finding homes for all of the unwanted babies - the "barren" will "just adopt".

This case is a very basic principle and decision: the term embryos is all encompassing whether that embryo is located inside a womb or not. Under Alabama law, an embryo is a person. Period; end of story; case closed. I mean that’s really all there is to it. The court’s opinion was that the case was very simple. There is no exception. They wouldn’t care if the embryo was on Mars. Embryo = life = child.

The basic premise could be used to legislate against IUDs and other forms of birth control that interfere with an embryo, for having a miscarriage, for the medical courier dropping the delivery of the frozen embryos and causing them to be damaged, for a power company to be liable for all the embryos that die during a power failure of the cryogenic storage, for the ICSI tech/embryologist damaging an embryo…the possibilities are endless.

Technically it seems under this ruling the only type of IVF that would be legal would be single egg retrieval which is rarely done.

What clinic would do even that? These are businesses. They are in the business of helping infertile people get pregnant and have babies but they are not going to risk the business to do IVF in this dangerous Alabama environment.

None. And I can’t imagine any coupe who isn’t extremely wealthy going forward with a single egg retrieval. Even then, the emotional toll of IVF would make single egg torturous. I’ve done 6 rounds and have 2 kids, but the process for the second child almost broke me emotionally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is so focused on the frozen embryos. Anyone who has gone through IVF knows that fertilized eggs and eventual embryos are typically lost throughout the process. For those who aren't experienced, here's a primer:
After roughly 2 weeks of injections, a women undergoes egg retrieval, in which a needle is inserted through the vaginal wall and into follicles within the ovaries to collect eggs (day 0). Immediately after the retrieval, those eggs that are mature are combined with sperm, often through a process known as ICSI (intercytoplasmic sperm injection), in the hopes that those mature eggs will be fertilized. In my experience, we received a call from our RE on day 2, once he had the report from the embryology lab, to let us know how many eggs were fertilized and beginning to undergo cell division. Once embryos reach the blastocyst stage (day 5 or 6), that is when they are typically frozen or occasionally returned to the woman's body via a fresh transfer. So there are 5 whole days there where some of those fertilized eggs are lost in the process, never reaching a mature enough stage for transfer or freezing.
If the Alabama ruling holds, and they consider life to begin at the moment of fertilization, then that could potentially cause issues with the entire process, not just the frozen embryos. Would they hold someone accountable for the absolutely normal attrition of fertilized eggs in the embryology lab on days 1-4? What about if something happens to an embryo once it is thawed for transfer? Is someone criminally negligent there for authorizing the thaw/transfer process?
This ruling is a can of worms, and there are most definitely some in the Republican party who 100% want IVF and even some other, less invasive, infertility treatments, to go away. That's where they plan on finding homes for all of the unwanted babies - the "barren" will "just adopt".

This case is a very basic principle and decision: the term embryos is all encompassing whether that embryo is located inside a womb or not. Under Alabama law, an embryo is a person. Period; end of story; case closed. I mean that’s really all there is to it. The court’s opinion was that the case was very simple. There is no exception. They wouldn’t care if the embryo was on Mars. Embryo = life = child.

The basic premise could be used to legislate against IUDs and other forms of birth control that interfere with an embryo, for having a miscarriage, for the medical courier dropping the delivery of the frozen embryos and causing them to be damaged, for a power company to be liable for all the embryos that die during a power failure of the cryogenic storage, for the ICSI tech/embryologist damaging an embryo…the possibilities are endless.

Technically it seems under this ruling the only type of IVF that would be legal would be single egg retrieval which is rarely done.

Single egg retrieval is exactly what the concurring opinion detailed. Try one egg only for each Ivf cycle to avoid having multiple embryos/children in a freezer.

There are are still too many things that go wrong and the even the one embryo is non viable. I don't see that the clinic could risk being involved in this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is so focused on the frozen embryos. Anyone who has gone through IVF knows that fertilized eggs and eventual embryos are typically lost throughout the process. For those who aren't experienced, here's a primer:
After roughly 2 weeks of injections, a women undergoes egg retrieval, in which a needle is inserted through the vaginal wall and into follicles within the ovaries to collect eggs (day 0). Immediately after the retrieval, those eggs that are mature are combined with sperm, often through a process known as ICSI (intercytoplasmic sperm injection), in the hopes that those mature eggs will be fertilized. In my experience, we received a call from our RE on day 2, once he had the report from the embryology lab, to let us know how many eggs were fertilized and beginning to undergo cell division. Once embryos reach the blastocyst stage (day 5 or 6), that is when they are typically frozen or occasionally returned to the woman's body via a fresh transfer. So there are 5 whole days there where some of those fertilized eggs are lost in the process, never reaching a mature enough stage for transfer or freezing.
If the Alabama ruling holds, and they consider life to begin at the moment of fertilization, then that could potentially cause issues with the entire process, not just the frozen embryos. Would they hold someone accountable for the absolutely normal attrition of fertilized eggs in the embryology lab on days 1-4? What about if something happens to an embryo once it is thawed for transfer? Is someone criminally negligent there for authorizing the thaw/transfer process?
This ruling is a can of worms, and there are most definitely some in the Republican party who 100% want IVF and even some other, less invasive, infertility treatments, to go away. That's where they plan on finding homes for all of the unwanted babies - the "barren" will "just adopt".

This case is a very basic principle and decision: the term embryos is all encompassing whether that embryo is located inside a womb or not. Under Alabama law, an embryo is a person. Period; end of story; case closed. I mean that’s really all there is to it. The court’s opinion was that the case was very simple. There is no exception. They wouldn’t care if the embryo was on Mars. Embryo = life = child.

The basic premise could be used to legislate against IUDs and other forms of birth control that interfere with an embryo, for having a miscarriage, for the medical courier dropping the delivery of the frozen embryos and causing them to be damaged, for a power company to be liable for all the embryos that die during a power failure of the cryogenic storage, for the ICSI tech/embryologist damaging an embryo…the possibilities are endless.

Technically it seems under this ruling the only type of IVF that would be legal would be single egg retrieval which is rarely done.

What clinic would do even that? These are businesses. They are in the business of helping infertile people get pregnant and have babies but they are not going to risk the business to do IVF in this dangerous Alabama environment.

I have only heard of single egg retrieval being done for people who wanted to do natural options/not using hormones and drugs to stimulate ovaries. I did 5 rounds of IVF myself to get 2 kids and I had heard about it but I don’t think Shady Grove (where I went) did it. At the time I remember a few places offered it but the odds are not in your favor plus it’s insanely expensive before you even add the cost of the drugs.