IVF embryos are people too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Alabama case was not about banning IVF treatment. It was brought by a couple seeking IVF treatment at a facility. They charged negligence by the facility for losing their embryos when a random patient went in and dropped the embryos.

Not just negligence - wrongful death. Of course people working at IVF treatment centers will be concerned about continuing to work there, and provide treatment, when an accident could happen, and they could be charged with wrongful death.

You don't have to ban the treatment for this ruling to have a negative effect on the willingness of doctors and clinicians to provide IVF procedures.

Negligence in this case wasn’t enough for the plaintiffs. Again, people really should google the case (a link has been posted in the thread) and read the decision (or at least a few pages of it). The plaintiffs specifically want to collect punitive damages and the only way they can under Alabama law is under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act. Hence this case hinges on whether there was a death of a person and for that you first need to determine was there a person. The court held the frozen embryos were people. So now you have a person/minor child.

The fact pattern doesn’t seem to be in dispute. If the plaintiffs in their third argument of destruction of property would only come into play if the court found that the embryos were not people and the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act did not apply. But you cannot collect much damages in Alabama in that scenario. BUT in other states the (gross) negligence of the clinic and hospital would be relevant. But these plaintiffs found a specific angle and Alabama had put itself into a corner with already establishing repeatedly that embryos are people.

Yes and there are consequences for establishing that blastocysts are people. As has been repeatedly outlined in this thread. This goes far beyond trying to compensate a coupe for a horror they experienced.

Also did you ignore the chief justice quoting the bible in his concurring opinion?

No I didn’t ignore it per se, I just think the court found that this particular case was very open and shut for them and they said as much in their reasoning that the Biblical reasoning (while disturbing and IMO unconstitutional) was irrelevant in the overall decision. It’s seems a bible beating justice needed to showcase his evangelicalness so he wrote a concurring opinion. It doesn’t take away, for me, the core of the main opinion which is because there is well established case law in Alabama that an embryo (which is egg that is fertilized by a sperm) is a person the MOMENT it is fertilized is a person, that includes all embryos. It is irrelevant to this court where that embryo is. It is a person and because it is a person the destruction of these embryos qualify under the Wrongful Death of Minor Act. End of story.

Now I haven’t read into the prior case law that did establish embryo is considered a person with all the rights thereto but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some religious reasonings in those cases. So here would be some carry over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Alabama case was not about banning IVF treatment. It was brought by a couple seeking IVF treatment at a facility. They charged negligence by the facility for losing their embryos when a random patient went in and dropped the embryos.

Not just negligence - wrongful death. Of course people working at IVF treatment centers will be concerned about continuing to work there, and provide treatment, when an accident could happen, and they could be charged with wrongful death.

You don't have to ban the treatment for this ruling to have a negative effect on the willingness of doctors and clinicians to provide IVF procedures.

Negligence in this case wasn’t enough for the plaintiffs. Again, people really should google the case (a link has been posted in the thread) and read the decision (or at least a few pages of it). The plaintiffs specifically want to collect punitive damages and the only way they can under Alabama law is under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act. Hence this case hinges on whether there was a death of a person and for that you first need to determine was there a person. The court held the frozen embryos were people. So now you have a person/minor child.

The fact pattern doesn’t seem to be in dispute. If the plaintiffs in their third argument of destruction of property would only come into play if the court found that the embryos were not people and the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act did not apply. But you cannot collect much damages in Alabama in that scenario. BUT in other states the (gross) negligence of the clinic and hospital would be relevant. But these plaintiffs found a specific angle and Alabama had put itself into a corner with already establishing repeatedly that embryos are people.

Yes and there are consequences for establishing that blastocysts are people. As has been repeatedly outlined in this thread. This goes far beyond trying to compensate a coupe for a horror they experienced.

Also did you ignore the chief justice quoting the bible in his concurring opinion?

No I didn’t ignore it per se, I just think the court found that this particular case was very open and shut for them and they said as much in their reasoning that the Biblical reasoning (while disturbing and IMO unconstitutional) was irrelevant in the overall decision. It’s seems a bible beating justice needed to showcase his evangelicalness so he wrote a concurring opinion. It doesn’t take away, for me, the core of the main opinion which is because there is well established case law in Alabama that an embryo (which is egg that is fertilized by a sperm) is a person the MOMENT it is fertilized is a person, that includes all embryos. It is irrelevant to this court where that embryo is. It is a person and because it is a person the destruction of these embryos qualify under the Wrongful Death of Minor Act. End of story.

Now I haven’t read into the prior case law that did establish embryo is considered a person with all the rights thereto but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some religious reasonings in those cases. So here would be some carry over.

I have noticed that people who say "End of Story" have rarely ended the story.

SCOTUS already ruled that embryos aren't people under the constitution.

If they are people, then we should start counting them for the census.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Alabama case was not about banning IVF treatment. It was brought by a couple seeking IVF treatment at a facility. They charged negligence by the facility for losing their embryos when a random patient went in and dropped the embryos.

Not just negligence - wrongful death. Of course people working at IVF treatment centers will be concerned about continuing to work there, and provide treatment, when an accident could happen, and they could be charged with wrongful death.

You don't have to ban the treatment for this ruling to have a negative effect on the willingness of doctors and clinicians to provide IVF procedures.

Negligence in this case wasn’t enough for the plaintiffs. Again, people really should google the case (a link has been posted in the thread) and read the decision (or at least a few pages of it). The plaintiffs specifically want to collect punitive damages and the only way they can under Alabama law is under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act. Hence this case hinges on whether there was a death of a person and for that you first need to determine was there a person. The court held the frozen embryos were people. So now you have a person/minor child.

The fact pattern doesn’t seem to be in dispute. If the plaintiffs in their third argument of destruction of property would only come into play if the court found that the embryos were not people and the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act did not apply. But you cannot collect much damages in Alabama in that scenario. BUT in other states the (gross) negligence of the clinic and hospital would be relevant. But these plaintiffs found a specific angle and Alabama had put itself into a corner with already establishing repeatedly that embryos are people.

Yes and there are consequences for establishing that blastocysts are people. As has been repeatedly outlined in this thread. This goes far beyond trying to compensate a coupe for a horror they experienced.

Also did you ignore the chief justice quoting the bible in his concurring opinion?

No I didn’t ignore it per se, I just think the court found that this particular case was very open and shut for them and they said as much in their reasoning that the Biblical reasoning (while disturbing and IMO unconstitutional) was irrelevant in the overall decision. It’s seems a bible beating justice needed to showcase his evangelicalness so he wrote a concurring opinion. It doesn’t take away, for me, the core of the main opinion which is because there is well established case law in Alabama that an embryo (which is egg that is fertilized by a sperm) is a person the MOMENT it is fertilized is a person, that includes all embryos. It is irrelevant to this court where that embryo is. It is a person and because it is a person the destruction of these embryos qualify under the Wrongful Death of Minor Act. End of story.

Now I haven’t read into the prior case law that did establish embryo is considered a person with all the rights thereto but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some religious reasonings in those cases. So here would be some carry over.

I have noticed that people who say "End of Story" have rarely ended the story.

SCOTUS already ruled that embryos aren't people under the constitution.

If they are people, then we should start counting them for the census.

I agree with everything you say although you seem to be arguing with me. Have a good one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Alabama case was not about banning IVF treatment. It was brought by a couple seeking IVF treatment at a facility. They charged negligence by the facility for losing their embryos when a random patient went in and dropped the embryos.

Not just negligence - wrongful death. Of course people working at IVF treatment centers will be concerned about continuing to work there, and provide treatment, when an accident could happen, and they could be charged with wrongful death.

You don't have to ban the treatment for this ruling to have a negative effect on the willingness of doctors and clinicians to provide IVF procedures.

Negligence in this case wasn’t enough for the plaintiffs. Again, people really should google the case (a link has been posted in the thread) and read the decision (or at least a few pages of it). The plaintiffs specifically want to collect punitive damages and the only way they can under Alabama law is under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act. Hence this case hinges on whether there was a death of a person and for that you first need to determine was there a person. The court held the frozen embryos were people. So now you have a person/minor child.

The fact pattern doesn’t seem to be in dispute. If the plaintiffs in their third argument of destruction of property would only come into play if the court found that the embryos were not people and the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act did not apply. But you cannot collect much damages in Alabama in that scenario. BUT in other states the (gross) negligence of the clinic and hospital would be relevant. But these plaintiffs found a specific angle and Alabama had put itself into a corner with already establishing repeatedly that embryos are people.

Yes and there are consequences for establishing that blastocysts are people. As has been repeatedly outlined in this thread. This goes far beyond trying to compensate a coupe for a horror they experienced.

Also did you ignore the chief justice quoting the bible in his concurring opinion?

No I didn’t ignore it per se, I just think the court found that this particular case was very open and shut for them and they said as much in their reasoning that the Biblical reasoning (while disturbing and IMO unconstitutional) was irrelevant in the overall decision. It’s seems a bible beating justice needed to showcase his evangelicalness so he wrote a concurring opinion. It doesn’t take away, for me, the core of the main opinion which is because there is well established case law in Alabama that an embryo (which is egg that is fertilized by a sperm) is a person the MOMENT it is fertilized is a person, that includes all embryos. It is irrelevant to this court where that embryo is. It is a person and because it is a person the destruction of these embryos qualify under the Wrongful Death of Minor Act. End of story.

Now I haven’t read into the prior case law that did establish embryo is considered a person with all the rights thereto but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some religious reasonings in those cases. So here would be some carry over.

I have noticed that people who say "End of Story" have rarely ended the story.

SCOTUS already ruled that embryos aren't people under the constitution.

If they are people, then we should start counting them for the census.

A fertility clinic cannot be forced to offer IVF. Under Roe they were protected to operate and offer this important treatment. In this new environment, they are not obligated to risk ruinous legal consequences that could come with offering IVF. IVF is done in Alabama and probably more states to come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Alabama case was not about banning IVF treatment. It was brought by a couple seeking IVF treatment at a facility. They charged negligence by the facility for losing their embryos when a random patient went in and dropped the embryos.

Not just negligence - wrongful death. Of course people working at IVF treatment centers will be concerned about continuing to work there, and provide treatment, when an accident could happen, and they could be charged with wrongful death.

You don't have to ban the treatment for this ruling to have a negative effect on the willingness of doctors and clinicians to provide IVF procedures.

Negligence in this case wasn’t enough for the plaintiffs. Again, people really should google the case (a link has been posted in the thread) and read the decision (or at least a few pages of it). The plaintiffs specifically want to collect punitive damages and the only way they can under Alabama law is under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act. Hence this case hinges on whether there was a death of a person and for that you first need to determine was there a person. The court held the frozen embryos were people. So now you have a person/minor child.

The fact pattern doesn’t seem to be in dispute. If the plaintiffs in their third argument of destruction of property would only come into play if the court found that the embryos were not people and the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act did not apply. But you cannot collect much damages in Alabama in that scenario. BUT in other states the (gross) negligence of the clinic and hospital would be relevant. But these plaintiffs found a specific angle and Alabama had put itself into a corner with already establishing repeatedly that embryos are people.

Yes and there are consequences for establishing that blastocysts are people. As has been repeatedly outlined in this thread. This goes far beyond trying to compensate a coupe for a horror they experienced.

Also did you ignore the chief justice quoting the bible in his concurring opinion?

No I didn’t ignore it per se, I just think the court found that this particular case was very open and shut for them and they said as much in their reasoning that the Biblical reasoning (while disturbing and IMO unconstitutional) was irrelevant in the overall decision. It’s seems a bible beating justice needed to showcase his evangelicalness so he wrote a concurring opinion. It doesn’t take away, for me, the core of the main opinion which is because there is well established case law in Alabama that an embryo (which is egg that is fertilized by a sperm) is a person the MOMENT it is fertilized is a person, that includes all embryos. It is irrelevant to this court where that embryo is. It is a person and because it is a person the destruction of these embryos qualify under the Wrongful Death of Minor Act. End of story.

Now I haven’t read into the prior case law that did establish embryo is considered a person with all the rights thereto but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some religious reasonings in those cases. So here would be some carry over.

I have noticed that people who say "End of Story" have rarely ended the story.

SCOTUS already ruled that embryos aren't people under the constitution.

If they are people, then we should start counting them for the census.

A fertility clinic cannot be forced to offer IVF. Under Roe they were protected to operate and offer this important treatment. In this new environment, they are not obligated to risk ruinous legal consequences that could come with offering IVF. IVF is done in Alabama and probably more states to come.

By done I mean over, finished, kaput, no longer available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I could post this in the thread about Rob Reiner’s documentary on Christian Nationalism but it got locked. This is language in a real court ruling in America.

Why is a judge allowed to quote the Bible instead of legal precedent??

And this is the Supreme Court. Incredibly scary!!!!

I heard that idiot chief justice say that God created government. But OUR government was founded on the separation of church and state.

The inmates are definitely running the asylum.

And the GOP is who put them there. For the last 30 years, the GOP has been pandering and catering to, empowering, enabling, emboldening encouraging all of this and has been funding and elevating these nutjobs to the highest offices at the state and federal level.

And now it's just astounding to see Trump and other Republicans now falling all over themselves saying "uhhh no wait we need to protect IVF!" Sorry but this is a beast that is 100% of the GOP's own making. Every last Republican is culpable in this scheme. And accordingly, every last Republican is not to be trusted on any of this and needs to be removed from office.

Yeah, you know Trump doesn’t give a damn about IVF. What he really cares about is that UMC white, Republican women in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia will be totally freaked out by this ruling and will vote accordingly in November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Alabama case was not about banning IVF treatment. It was brought by a couple seeking IVF treatment at a facility. They charged negligence by the facility for losing their embryos when a random patient went in and dropped the embryos.

Not just negligence - wrongful death. Of course people working at IVF treatment centers will be concerned about continuing to work there, and provide treatment, when an accident could happen, and they could be charged with wrongful death.

You don't have to ban the treatment for this ruling to have a negative effect on the willingness of doctors and clinicians to provide IVF procedures.

Negligence in this case wasn’t enough for the plaintiffs. Again, people really should google the case (a link has been posted in the thread) and read the decision (or at least a few pages of it). The plaintiffs specifically want to collect punitive damages and the only way they can under Alabama law is under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act. Hence this case hinges on whether there was a death of a person and for that you first need to determine was there a person. The court held the frozen embryos were people. So now you have a person/minor child.

The fact pattern doesn’t seem to be in dispute. If the plaintiffs in their third argument of destruction of property would only come into play if the court found that the embryos were not people and the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act did not apply. But you cannot collect much damages in Alabama in that scenario. BUT in other states the (gross) negligence of the clinic and hospital would be relevant. But these plaintiffs found a specific angle and Alabama had put itself into a corner with already establishing repeatedly that embryos are people.

Yes and there are consequences for establishing that blastocysts are people. As has been repeatedly outlined in this thread. This goes far beyond trying to compensate a coupe for a horror they experienced.

Also did you ignore the chief justice quoting the bible in his concurring opinion?

No I didn’t ignore it per se, I just think the court found that this particular case was very open and shut for them and they said as much in their reasoning that the Biblical reasoning (while disturbing and IMO unconstitutional) was irrelevant in the overall decision. It’s seems a bible beating justice needed to showcase his evangelicalness so he wrote a concurring opinion. It doesn’t take away, for me, the core of the main opinion which is because there is well established case law in Alabama that an embryo (which is egg that is fertilized by a sperm) is a person the MOMENT it is fertilized is a person, that includes all embryos. It is irrelevant to this court where that embryo is. It is a person and because it is a person the destruction of these embryos qualify under the Wrongful Death of Minor Act. End of story.

Now I haven’t read into the prior case law that did establish embryo is considered a person with all the rights thereto but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some religious reasonings in those cases. So here would be some carry over.

I have noticed that people who say "End of Story" have rarely ended the story.

SCOTUS already ruled that embryos aren't people under the constitution.

If they are people, then we should start counting them for the census.

But now they have a quandary because Alito loves saying STATES RIGHTS whenever a deep red state does something like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Alabama case was not about banning IVF treatment. It was brought by a couple seeking IVF treatment at a facility. They charged negligence by the facility for losing their embryos when a random patient went in and dropped the embryos.

Not just negligence - wrongful death. Of course people working at IVF treatment centers will be concerned about continuing to work there, and provide treatment, when an accident could happen, and they could be charged with wrongful death.

You don't have to ban the treatment for this ruling to have a negative effect on the willingness of doctors and clinicians to provide IVF procedures.

Negligence in this case wasn’t enough for the plaintiffs. Again, people really should google the case (a link has been posted in the thread) and read the decision (or at least a few pages of it). The plaintiffs specifically want to collect punitive damages and the only way they can under Alabama law is under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act. Hence this case hinges on whether there was a death of a person and for that you first need to determine was there a person. The court held the frozen embryos were people. So now you have a person/minor child.

The fact pattern doesn’t seem to be in dispute. If the plaintiffs in their third argument of destruction of property would only come into play if the court found that the embryos were not people and the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act did not apply. But you cannot collect much damages in Alabama in that scenario. BUT in other states the (gross) negligence of the clinic and hospital would be relevant. But these plaintiffs found a specific angle and Alabama had put itself into a corner with already establishing repeatedly that embryos are people.

Yes and there are consequences for establishing that blastocysts are people. As has been repeatedly outlined in this thread. This goes far beyond trying to compensate a coupe for a horror they experienced.

Also did you ignore the chief justice quoting the bible in his concurring opinion?

No I didn’t ignore it per se, I just think the court found that this particular case was very open and shut for them and they said as much in their reasoning that the Biblical reasoning (while disturbing and IMO unconstitutional) was irrelevant in the overall decision. It’s seems a bible beating justice needed to showcase his evangelicalness so he wrote a concurring opinion. It doesn’t take away, for me, the core of the main opinion which is because there is well established case law in Alabama that an embryo (which is egg that is fertilized by a sperm) is a person the MOMENT it is fertilized is a person, that includes all embryos. It is irrelevant to this court where that embryo is. It is a person and because it is a person the destruction of these embryos qualify under the Wrongful Death of Minor Act. End of story.

Now I haven’t read into the prior case law that did establish embryo is considered a person with all the rights thereto but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some religious reasonings in those cases. So here would be some carry over.

I have noticed that people who say "End of Story" have rarely ended the story.

SCOTUS already ruled that embryos aren't people under the constitution.

If they are people, then we should start counting them for the census.

A fertility clinic cannot be forced to offer IVF. Under Roe they were protected to operate and offer this important treatment. In this new environment, they are not obligated to risk ruinous legal consequences that could come with offering IVF. IVF is done in Alabama and probably more states to come.

Even as they spin and backpedal it is abundantly clear that the entire sector of healthcare having anything at all to do with reproduction is deeply imperiled by conservatives. Again and again the right has shown it is dangerously erratic, capricious, uninformed, untrustworthy and is putting women and the medical sector at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I could post this in the thread about Rob Reiner’s documentary on Christian Nationalism but it got locked. This is language in a real court ruling in America.

Why is a judge allowed to quote the Bible instead of legal precedent??

And this is the Supreme Court. Incredibly scary!!!!

I heard that idiot chief justice say that God created government. But OUR government was founded on the separation of church and state.

The inmates are definitely running the asylum.

And the GOP is who put them there. For the last 30 years, the GOP has been pandering and catering to, empowering, enabling, emboldening encouraging all of this and has been funding and elevating these nutjobs to the highest offices at the state and federal level.

And now it's just astounding to see Trump and other Republicans now falling all over themselves saying "uhhh no wait we need to protect IVF!" Sorry but this is a beast that is 100% of the GOP's own making. Every last Republican is culpable in this scheme. And accordingly, every last Republican is not to be trusted on any of this and needs to be removed from office.

Yeah, you know Trump doesn’t give a damn about IVF. What he really cares about is that UMC white, Republican women in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia will be totally freaked out by this ruling and will vote accordingly in November.

All this does is give people who were already going to vote for Trump and GOP permission to keep doing so. They can claim “Trump/insert any GOP candidate” isn’t against IVF!” And technically they could be supportive. The question they need to be asked is Do you believe embryos are children. The media won’t ask this because they are lazy. But that is the question to get these folks on the record for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Alabama case was not about banning IVF treatment. It was brought by a couple seeking IVF treatment at a facility. They charged negligence by the facility for losing their embryos when a random patient went in and dropped the embryos.

Not just negligence - wrongful death. Of course people working at IVF treatment centers will be concerned about continuing to work there, and provide treatment, when an accident could happen, and they could be charged with wrongful death.

You don't have to ban the treatment for this ruling to have a negative effect on the willingness of doctors and clinicians to provide IVF procedures.

Negligence in this case wasn’t enough for the plaintiffs. Again, people really should google the case (a link has been posted in the thread) and read the decision (or at least a few pages of it). The plaintiffs specifically want to collect punitive damages and the only way they can under Alabama law is under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act. Hence this case hinges on whether there was a death of a person and for that you first need to determine was there a person. The court held the frozen embryos were people. So now you have a person/minor child.

The fact pattern doesn’t seem to be in dispute. If the plaintiffs in their third argument of destruction of property would only come into play if the court found that the embryos were not people and the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child Act did not apply. But you cannot collect much damages in Alabama in that scenario. BUT in other states the (gross) negligence of the clinic and hospital would be relevant. But these plaintiffs found a specific angle and Alabama had put itself into a corner with already establishing repeatedly that embryos are people.

Yes and there are consequences for establishing that blastocysts are people. As has been repeatedly outlined in this thread. This goes far beyond trying to compensate a coupe for a horror they experienced.

Also did you ignore the chief justice quoting the bible in his concurring opinion?

No I didn’t ignore it per se, I just think the court found that this particular case was very open and shut for them and they said as much in their reasoning that the Biblical reasoning (while disturbing and IMO unconstitutional) was irrelevant in the overall decision. It’s seems a bible beating justice needed to showcase his evangelicalness so he wrote a concurring opinion. It doesn’t take away, for me, the core of the main opinion which is because there is well established case law in Alabama that an embryo (which is egg that is fertilized by a sperm) is a person the MOMENT it is fertilized is a person, that includes all embryos. It is irrelevant to this court where that embryo is. It is a person and because it is a person the destruction of these embryos qualify under the Wrongful Death of Minor Act. End of story.

Now I haven’t read into the prior case law that did establish embryo is considered a person with all the rights thereto but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some religious reasonings in those cases. So here would be some carry over.

I have noticed that people who say "End of Story" have rarely ended the story.

SCOTUS already ruled that embryos aren't people under the constitution.

If they are people, then we should start counting them for the census.

A fertility clinic cannot be forced to offer IVF. Under Roe they were protected to operate and offer this important treatment. In this new environment, they are not obligated to risk ruinous legal consequences that could come with offering IVF. IVF is done in Alabama and probably more states to come.

Even as they spin and backpedal it is abundantly clear that the entire sector of healthcare having anything at all to do with reproduction is deeply imperiled by conservatives. Again and again the right has shown it is dangerously erratic, capricious, uninformed, untrustworthy and is putting women and the medical sector at risk.

This is the crux of the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Alabama case was not about banning IVF treatment. It was brought by a couple seeking IVF treatment at a facility. They charged negligence by the facility for losing their embryos when a random patient went in and dropped the embryos.

Yes...but the end result (declaring that life begins at FERTILIZATION and anything that causes destruction of said "life" is equivalent to causong the death of a living, breathing child) has implications for IVF, IUDs, etc.
Supposedly, the plaintiffs did not want this case to be used against IVF. No idea how they could have been so naive as to think that wouldn't happen.

Same way that some women supported overturning rvw thinking it was only about them wh0res who abort because they don't want the child, not thinking that it would impact women who want the baby but need to abort for medical reasons. That was the case in the TX situation with the woman who had an ectopic pregnancy. The mother of that woman thought that overturning rvw was good, until she realized that it would impact cases like her daughters.

Rs like to keep their people ignorant so that they can pass these laws without too many question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I could post this in the thread about Rob Reiner’s documentary on Christian Nationalism but it got locked. This is language in a real court ruling in America.

Why is a judge allowed to quote the Bible instead of legal precedent??

And this is the Supreme Court. Incredibly scary!!!!

I heard that idiot chief justice say that God created government. But OUR government was founded on the separation of church and state.

The inmates are definitely running the asylum.

And the GOP is who put them there. For the last 30 years, the GOP has been pandering and catering to, empowering, enabling, emboldening encouraging all of this and has been funding and elevating these nutjobs to the highest offices at the state and federal level.

And now it's just astounding to see Trump and other Republicans now falling all over themselves saying "uhhh no wait we need to protect IVF!" Sorry but this is a beast that is 100% of the GOP's own making. Every last Republican is culpable in this scheme. And accordingly, every last Republican is not to be trusted on any of this and needs to be removed from office.

Yeah, you know Trump doesn’t give a damn about IVF. What he really cares about is that UMC white, Republican women in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia will be totally freaked out by this ruling and will vote accordingly in November.

All this does is give people who were already going to vote for Trump and GOP permission to keep doing so. They can claim “Trump/insert any GOP candidate” isn’t against IVF!” And technically they could be supportive. The question they need to be asked is Do you believe embryos are children. The media won’t ask this because they are lazy. But that is the question to get these folks on the record for.

That's Republicans trying to sell people on a false notion of plausible deniability.

The problem is that this isn't the first time that Republicans have put reproductive healthcare and womens control of their bodies in turmoil and jeopardy. It keeps happening again and again and again and again. We are well beyond any shred of plausible deniability. Voters need to wake up to that basic fact. Voters need to open their eyes and start accepting their own responsibility for this happening and to recognize that the Republicans CAN NOT be believed or trusted when they try to deflect, spin, downplay or backpedal on this stuff regardless of who it is coming from.

The Republicans can't "claim" anything anymore. Their actions have already repeatedly spoken loudly and clearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I could post this in the thread about Rob Reiner’s documentary on Christian Nationalism but it got locked. This is language in a real court ruling in America.

Why is a judge allowed to quote the Bible instead of legal precedent??

And this is the Supreme Court. Incredibly scary!!!!

I heard that idiot chief justice say that God created government. But OUR government was founded on the separation of church and state.

The inmates are definitely running the asylum.

And the GOP is who put them there. For the last 30 years, the GOP has been pandering and catering to, empowering, enabling, emboldening encouraging all of this and has been funding and elevating these nutjobs to the highest offices at the state and federal level.

And now it's just astounding to see Trump and other Republicans now falling all over themselves saying "uhhh no wait we need to protect IVF!" Sorry but this is a beast that is 100% of the GOP's own making. Every last Republican is culpable in this scheme. And accordingly, every last Republican is not to be trusted on any of this and needs to be removed from office.

Yeah, you know Trump doesn’t give a damn about IVF. What he really cares about is that UMC white, Republican women in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia will be totally freaked out by this ruling and will vote accordingly in November.

All this does is give people who were already going to vote for Trump and GOP permission to keep doing so. They can claim “Trump/insert any GOP candidate” isn’t against IVF!” And technically they could be supportive. The question they need to be asked is Do you believe embryos are children. The media won’t ask this because they are lazy. But that is the question to get these folks on the record for.

That's Republicans trying to sell people on a false notion of plausible deniability.

The problem is that this isn't the first time that Republicans have put reproductive healthcare and womens control of their bodies in turmoil and jeopardy. It keeps happening again and again and again and again. We are well beyond any shred of plausible deniability. Voters need to wake up to that basic fact. Voters need to open their eyes and start accepting their own responsibility for this happening and to recognize that the Republicans CAN NOT be believed or trusted when they try to deflect, spin, downplay or backpedal on this stuff regardless of who it is coming from.

The Republicans can't "claim" anything anymore. Their actions have already repeatedly spoken loudly and clearly.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." That's where we currently are, Republican-voting women. Time to make your decision of whether to keep letting yourselves be fooled or to change.

[Anonymous]

So the R lawmakers are trying to save the situation by passing another law that excludes frozen embryos. Seems to me that they are playing God here, deciding which embryo is a "baby" and which is not.

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/22/1233270447/alabama-lawmakers-move-to-protect-ivf-treatment

Melson, who chairs the Senate's Health Care Committee, said Thursday that he is planning to introduce legislation that would clarify that embryos are not viable unless they are implanted in a uterus.

This is a slippery slope. When is a fetus "viable"? A fetus with a genetic defect that cannot survive much after being born is not "viable". So, shouldn't the woman be able to abort such a fetus?

Too much gray area. That's the problem with these kinds of laws, and why politicians should stay away from defining medical terms and treatment.

Stupid a$$ Rs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the R lawmakers are trying to save the situation by passing another law that excludes frozen embryos. Seems to me that they are playing God here, deciding which embryo is a "baby" and which is not.

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/22/1233270447/alabama-lawmakers-move-to-protect-ivf-treatment

Melson, who chairs the Senate's Health Care Committee, said Thursday that he is planning to introduce legislation that would clarify that embryos are not viable unless they are implanted in a uterus.

This is a slippery slope. When is a fetus "viable"? A fetus with a genetic defect that cannot survive much after being born is not "viable". So, shouldn't the woman be able to abort such a fetus?

Too much gray area. That's the problem with these kinds of laws, and why politicians should stay away from defining medical terms and treatment.

Stupid a$$ Rs.

If they’re gong to use the term implant that means after attaching to the uterine wall. So it means NOT at the moment of fertilization, when the sperm enters the egg which then divides. In a typical non-IVF pregnancy implantation happens maybe 3-5 days after fertilization. So now cons are going to have to come up with an excuse for why those freely floating fertilized eggs not yet attached to the uterus are not people.