IVF embryos are people too

[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.

The AL law claims "life begins at conception", but this new law that they are trying to pass states that "a frozen embryo is not viable".

A frozen embryo is still a life, so it doesn't seem that they are very clear on their own laws.

The two laws seem to contradict each other.

[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.

Ha! That protects plan B and IUD’s!
Good luck getting that past the religious nutjobs in your state house.

[Anonymous]

I love all the video of GOP US Senators and Governors talking about their support for similar legislation and respective state and Federal levels.

The GOP cannot run away from this. It is all a direct result of the Christian Fundamentalist judges that have hijacked our court system.

[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.

The plaintiffs in the case anticipated this, because their second argument for having their frozen embryos being recognized as life and people was Equal Protection Clause under the 14th amendment. Equal protection for ALL embryos, no exceptions, no distinctions. The court did not decide on this issue but now the Pandora’s box for that argument has been opened. If the original plaintiffs don’t continue to support this argument I suspect someone else will sue under it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say I told you so, but thus begins the end of IVF....

https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/343d203a-b13d-463a-8176-c46e3ae4f695/docketentrydocuments/e3d95592-3cbe-4384-afa6-063d4595aa1d

It really does not make any sense to prize zygotes in-utero and not outside of the uterus.

IVF was over with Dobbs in some states. Surprised it took this long. Sorry red states. No infertility treatments for you.

Hope voting to punish *those* women was worth it.

Hopefully people are realizing it was not worth it. IVF births are 1 to 2 percent if all births in this country. That is a lot of voters and voters that care about them.

So are the number of abortions and LGBTQ+ but MAGA makes a big deal about it to fearmonger......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say I told you so, but thus begins the end of IVF....

https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/343d203a-b13d-463a-8176-c46e3ae4f695/docketentrydocuments/e3d95592-3cbe-4384-afa6-063d4595aa1d

It really does not make any sense to prize zygotes in-utero and not outside of the uterus.

IVF was over with Dobbs in some states. Surprised it took this long. Sorry red states. No infertility treatments for you.

Hope voting to punish *those* women was worth it.

Hopefully people are realizing it was not worth it. IVF births are 1 to 2 percent if all births in this country. That is a lot of voters and voters that care about them.

So are the number of abortions and LGBTQ+ but MAGA makes a big deal about it to fearmonger......

The percent of voters that are gay or that have had an abortion are even more significant. Add in all the people that care about them and it is huge swathes of the population. It boggles the mind how many people vote against their own interests or against the interests of people they supposedly love.

[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.

These is an awfully breezy assessment, and not taking into consideration this decision has been the long term goal. They’ve been building to this brick by brick for the last 3 decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love all the video of GOP US Senators and Governors talking about their support for similar legislation and respective state and Federal levels.

The GOP cannot run away from this. It is all a direct result of the Christian Fundamentalist judges that have hijacked our court system.

Christian Fundamentalist judges HAVE NOT hijacked our court system. They were INSTALLED. These judges never hid their beliefs yet Senators confirmed them. Or voters voted for them. EVERY SINGLE HOUSE GOP VOTED to make christian nationalist Mike Johnson speaker. “moderates” like Mike Gallerger who finally grew a backbone and didn’t impeach Mayorkas voted to elevate to be 2nd in line to presidency.

These aren’t a handful of crazies. The blame lies in the voters who vote R for lower taxes. They all own this.

[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.

These is an awfully breezy assessment, and not taking into consideration this decision has been the long term goal. They’ve been building to this brick by brick for the last 3 decades.

I am not sure why you’re insulting me. I hope your day gets better. You make an incredible leap to make suggestions that I am all breezy about it. Huh? Arguing against people who all agree on same thing doesn’t help the cause. It’s exactly what the other side wants.

Evangelicals play the long game; they’re willing to wait generations for what they want and they’re willing to pay serious money for it. The Vice short documentary on what they’re doing re Zionism to promote Armageddon so that Jesus will come again is a good example and if people haven’t watched The Family on Netflix now would be a good time. They have had a plan, for generations. They’re organized. Part of that plan is to infiltrate every single facet of government to then pass the laws they want. And it’s working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love all the video of GOP US Senators and Governors talking about their support for similar legislation and respective state and Federal levels.

The GOP cannot run away from this. It is all a direct result of the Christian Fundamentalist judges that have hijacked our court system.

Christian Fundamentalist judges HAVE NOT hijacked our court system. They were INSTALLED. These judges never hid their beliefs yet Senators confirmed them. Or voters voted for them. EVERY SINGLE HOUSE GOP VOTED to make christian nationalist Mike Johnson speaker. “moderates” like Mike Gallerger who finally grew a backbone and didn’t impeach Mayorkas voted to elevate to be 2nd in line to presidency.

These aren’t a handful of crazies. The blame lies in the voters who vote R for lower taxes. They all own this.

I stand corrected. The Fundamentalists in state and federal offices have installed like minded judges to do the bidding of the Billionaire Christian Fundamentalist class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love all the video of GOP US Senators and Governors talking about their support for similar legislation and respective state and Federal levels.

The GOP cannot run away from this. It is all a direct result of the Christian Fundamentalist judges that have hijacked our court system.

Christian Fundamentalist judges HAVE NOT hijacked our court system. They were INSTALLED. These judges never hid their beliefs yet Senators confirmed them. Or voters voted for them. EVERY SINGLE HOUSE GOP VOTED to make christian nationalist Mike Johnson speaker. “moderates” like Mike Gallerger who finally grew a backbone and didn’t impeach Mayorkas voted to elevate to be 2nd in line to presidency.

These aren’t a handful of crazies. The blame lies in the voters who vote R for lower taxes. They all own this.

I stand corrected. The Fundamentalists in state and federal offices have installed like minded judges to do the bidding of the Billionaire Christian Fundamentalist class.

And how did those legislators get the power to install judges? Everyday people. People who vote GOP are ultimately responsible. ALL OF THEM.

[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.

These is an awfully breezy assessment, and not taking into consideration this decision has been the long term goal. They’ve been building to this brick by brick for the last 3 decades.

I am not sure why you’re insulting me. I hope your day gets better. You make an incredible leap to make suggestions that I am all breezy about it. Huh? Arguing against people who all agree on same thing doesn’t help the cause. It’s exactly what the other side wants.

Evangelicals play the long game; they’re willing to wait generations for what they want and they’re willing to pay serious money for it. The Vice short documentary on what they’re doing re Zionism to promote Armageddon so that Jesus will come again is a good example and if people haven’t watched The Family on Netflix now would be a good time. They have had a plan, for generations. They’re organized. Part of that plan is to infiltrate every single facet of government to then pass the laws they want. And it’s working.

Calling your “take” breezy is not insulting. Go touch some grass. Seriously.
Your above post ,taken on its own, makes it sound like this is just a balls and strikes judicial call. Great that’s not what you intended, but we don’t get tone here. Clarification was needed.

[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.

+1

CRT was hung around the necks of all Democrats, regardless of whether they supported it or not. Republicans shouldn’t be able to moonwalk away from IVF.

[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.

These is an awfully breezy assessment, and not taking into consideration this decision has been the long term goal. They’ve been building to this brick by brick for the last 3 decades.

I am not sure why you’re insulting me. I hope your day gets better. You make an incredible leap to make suggestions that I am all breezy about it. Huh? Arguing against people who all agree on same thing doesn’t help the cause. It’s exactly what the other side wants.

Evangelicals play the long game; they’re willing to wait generations for what they want and they’re willing to pay serious money for it. The Vice short documentary on what they’re doing re Zionism to promote Armageddon so that Jesus will come again is a good example and if people haven’t watched The Family on Netflix now would be a good time. They have had a plan, for generations. They’re organized. Part of that plan is to infiltrate every single facet of government to then pass the laws they want. And it’s working.

Calling your “take” breezy is not insulting. Go touch some grass. Seriously.
Your above post ,taken on its own, makes it sound like this is just a balls and strikes judicial call. Great that’s not what you intended, but we don’t get tone here. Clarification was needed.

Seriously, calm down. Use that rage to help elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The plaintiffs in the case anticipated this, because their second argument for having their frozen embryos being recognized as life and people was Equal Protection Clause under the 14th amendment. Equal protection for ALL embryos, no exceptions, no distinctions. The court did not decide on this issue but now the Pandora’s box for that argument has been opened. If the original plaintiffs don’t continue to support this argument I suspect someone else will sue under it.

The belief that life begins at fertilization is religious in nature and has no business being national policy in the USA.