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?

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.

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.

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.

Can you imagine if a judge quoted verses of the Koran in a decision and mentioned Allah? There would be riots, FoxNews hosts would be apoplectic and so on

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.

Will anyone be interested in this republican bloviating about protecting IVF? I wouldn't trust any of them to have anything to do with my IVF clinic or cycle or embryo. They are the dummies that brought this on. No thanks.

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.

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.

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.

No way they didn’t know. One of their arguments is that outer uterine embryos deserve the same protection under the law as interuterine/in the womb embryos and are deemed one and the same under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

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.

Have you even read the thread? Have you read the opinion on this case? All you are listing are the series of events that lead to the claims.

The three plaintiffs want to collect punitive damages under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Child act because they claim the destruction of their frozen embryos qualified as minor children. So what is a minor child in Alabama? It has been established as case law since 2011 there that an unborn child as in an embryo DOES qualify as a minor child.

Fertility clinic and hospital counter argue that there should be an exception for embryos that are NOT in a womb aka frozen embryos like these ones. Court disagreed and sided with the plaintiffs and held that an embryo has personhood protection and was a person/minor child as soon as it became an embryo, whether it was located inside or outside a womb. The only kind of embryo that is created and exists outside a woman’s body is one done via IVF.

So please, educate yourself on the actual law being argued in this case. This case has wild implications. ONCE that egg is fertilized, the clock starts ticking according to the state of Alabama. There are no disputes about the fact pattern that lead to the claims. No one disputes whether the storage room was unlocked and whether an unauthorized person gained access and whether that same person reached into a tank and grabbed some embryos and dropped them on the floor like the crazy story that it is.

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.

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.

Just because a case was not about one thing doesn't mean that the ruling doesn't have implications for that one thing. Do you not understand how laws and judgments work?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This would also seem to eliminate PGD-IVF in its entirety, even if it’s a single egg retrieval.

Yep. Because even if it's discovered that an embryo is chromosomally defective, they'll insist it cannot just be discarded.

The process of PGD occurs on a 3 day old embryo where one cell is removed and then sent to a lab for testing. Sometimes this process will damage the embryo and it will not survive; much less the entire purpose of PGD is to screen for a particular genetic chromosome and if discarding the ones that are positive.

I cannot see any PGD lab in a state like Alabama agreeing to exist.

Republican women with functioning uteruses need to rescue these frozen people. Time to step up ladies!

Anonymous wrote:This would also seem to eliminate PGD-IVF in its entirety, even if it’s a single egg retrieval.

Yep. Because even if it's discovered that an embryo is chromosomally defective, they'll insist it cannot just be discarded.