Anonymous wrote:Mikey's got a whole lot of bumper in his mouth. But "Do you support IVF" is the wrong question. It needs to be "Do you agree with AL SCOTUS that embryos are children?"

Anonymous wrote:Mikey's got a whole lot of bumper in his mouth. But "Do you support IVF" is the wrong question. It needs to be "Do you agree with AL SCOTUS that embryos are children?"

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.

Anonymous wrote:Harsh, but true. This is a good line that should be used over and over again.

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.

They should have claimed malpractice. Failure to meet standard of care.

Who the hell leaves any type of biological tissue awaiting implantation (think a heart about to be transplanted) in an unlocked room, that any bozo off the street can pick up and drop on the floor??

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.

Anonymous wrote:Harsh, but true. This is a good line that should be used over and over again.

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) on Tuesday blocked a unanimous consent request to pass a bill that would have set federal protections for IVF and other fertility treatments whose future remains uncertain in the post-Roe era.

The big picture: Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who introduced the legislation, requested to pass it through unanimous consent — meaning the bill would have been considered passed if there were no objections — in response to concerns that abortion restrictions can apply to assisted reproductive technologies.

The Right To Build Families Act would have prohibited limiting an individual from seeking or receiving fertility treatments and would have created a federal right to assisted reproductive technology.

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 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 wrote:

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.

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.

Bingo.
They all need to go back to high school biology and try again. Fertilization precedes implantation, and implantation itself isn't guaranteed with either IVF or natural conception.
And, no, transferring an embryo to a uterus does not equal implantation.

Anonymous wrote:Harsh, but true. This is a good line that should be used over and over again.

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.

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.