Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also conception = fertilization. You seem confused.

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

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:No more selective reduction ladies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also conception = fertilization. You seem confused.

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

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

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

Conception is not an exclusive religious term. You’re trying to change language to suit your narrative. People, religious and irreligious, use forms of that word all time.
It’s not only Alabama that uses the word conception. The global Catholic Church defines human life as beginning at the moment of conception, a well understood word with definite meaning.

Anonymous wrote:If someone running an IVF clinic has fertilized embryos that are no longer needed and instead of disposing of them, drives the frozen embryos to the front steps of the Alabama State Supreme Court, and abandons them...

a) is this a crime? These are "children"

but assuming they get away with it...

b) does the state now have to assume responsibility of keeping these embryos frozen, in perpetuity, so they do not die? What about power outages? Is the state obligated to maintain these embryos on permanent life support? Till when?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also conception = fertilization. You seem confused.

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also conception = fertilization. You seem confused.

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Welcome to the GOP Dystopia!

Yeah, it's like I the GOP should go to their middle school health class and learn how conception works. The irony is that in "protecting children" they are going to scare away a lot of people from even trying to have kids.

People will wake up and realize that if starting a family is important then don't locate in one of these backwards, anti-pregnancy states.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Welcome to the GOP Dystopia!

Yeah, it's like I the GOP should go to their middle school health class and learn how conception works. The irony is that in "protecting children" they are going to scare away a lot of people from even trying to have kids.

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Welcome to the GOP Dystopia!

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also conception = fertilization. You seem confused.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So can patients sue the health system halting the procedures for withholding their children from them? I’m so confused.

If the embryos are people/children and the parents have not been deemed unfit to raise them…How is that going to work? Like what if you have viable embryos and you’re getting ready to have them implanted but now can’t. How is that legal.

Implant them yourself I guess if you want to take the risk. No MD is going to risk prosecution to help you...that is asking too much.

Yeah, I understand that but I still don’t get how it’s legal to withhold children from their mothers given this new ruling. I understand the health systems decision to halt, but I feel like now there has been a can of worms opened. If we deemed that those embryos are people I understand not wanting to risk prosecution, but I also understand not just being able to keep them there.

How are they not damned if they do and damned if they don’t?

I would guess this clinic will permanently halt IVF procedures and try to transfer this frozen depository of embryos to some other entity or basically just keep them frozen for eternity. If the frozen embryo can be transferred to a clinic in a state where IVF is protected, perhaps the couple could have an implantation procedure in that state.

It is an embryo transfer. Not implantation. You transfer the embryo to the uterus and hope it implants.
And my concern, as an IVF veteran, is more for the women who are in the middle of egg retrieval cycles at this clinic right now. The frozen embryos can wait; egg retrieval is time critical, and once you start that process with the stim meds, you can't just put it all on hold . These women with canceled retrieval cycles will have to start from scratch.

More heartache for them. Terrible.

Do they have a contract with the health system? Can they sue?

Guessing the contract was signed before this new ruling changed the laws so what does that mean?

And there are never any guarantees with IVF. I was in the middle of it in NYC on 9 11. So many cancelled cycles obviously. Who are you gong to sue?

I don’t know. But I can imagine there is a wealthy Alabama couple or two who just got some bad news and are on the phone with a lawyer right now.

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