Anonymous wrote:Now all of the red states will just carve out statutory exceptions for IVF embryos and then back to usual. Bc that judge that cited the entire bible in his decision said it was the statute language that says embryos are children.

I don't think that's going to resolve the problem. While the direct question was the meaning of the statute, the court relied a lot on the Alabama constitution and also pretty strongly suggested that if embryos aren't considered children then it would be an equal protection violation. If I were an IVF clinic, a new statute would not give me a lot of comfort.

Anonymous wrote:I’m lucky that I didn’t have to have fertility treatments - how would those even work if you needed to travel to another state? Don’t you need to report in on short notice?

It would be very difficult and even more exclusionary than it already is.

Anonymous wrote:Now all of the red states will just carve out statutory exceptions for IVF embryos and then back to usual. Bc that judge that cited the entire bible in his decision said it was the statute language that says embryos are children.

And watch someone sue for violation of the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th amendment.

I’m lucky that I didn’t have to have fertility treatments - how would those even work if you needed to travel to another state? Don’t you need to report in on short notice?

But, on the other hand, it's probably best if red states don't have more wanted children. They will have enough unwanted, traumatized children in just a couple of years, who will provide all the low cost labor they want.

Why have educated or wealthier parents who need IVF stay in the state? They will probably vote against the far right anyhow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now all of the red states will just carve out statutory exceptions for IVF embryos and then back to usual. Bc that judge that cited the entire bible in his decision said it was the statute language that says embryos are children.

They can not force the clinics to offer IVF.

Exactly.

Why would an IVF clinic now either locate or stay in a red state when the law can be changed to shut down the reason for their entire existence, if more christofacist MAGAs are elected?

Can't put that genie back in the bottle.
Women's bodies aren't safe and now your embryos aren't safe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For every woman who is worried now about her embryos; transfers or if she can even start IVF - I ask you who did you vote for in 2016; who do you plan to vote for in 2024.

I had my babies. I want to see others be able to as well. But I laugh at those now in Alabama and other places (Texas, Ohio, etc) who said "but her emails" to me. They can stay barren.

Barren women shall stay barren regardless of their votes. We don't need artificially created babies. We have millions of newly arrived immigrants who can populate this country with healthy, naturally conceived babies.

Are you a troll?

Troll or not, there are many people who agree with this decision. People are allowed to have different opinions. But it’s not an opinion you often hear in DC.

The vast majority of people do not agree.

Ok. 👍🏼

People are allowed to have different opinions. If so many people disagree, then they will vote accordingly in upcoming elections and you have nothing to worry about.

We may get to vote for state Supreme Court justices, but we, the people, do not get to pick federal judges or Supreme Court justices. Voters picked the Democratic presidential nominee in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections, but look at the current makeup of the Supreme Court. With tyranny of the minority, we have every reason to worry.

Or maybe it is the majority of the population who don't support IVF?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For every woman who is worried now about her embryos; transfers or if she can even start IVF - I ask you who did you vote for in 2016; who do you plan to vote for in 2024.

I had my babies. I want to see others be able to as well. But I laugh at those now in Alabama and other places (Texas, Ohio, etc) who said "but her emails" to me. They can stay barren.

Barren women shall stay barren regardless of their votes. We don't need artificially created babies. We have millions of newly arrived immigrants who can populate this country with healthy, naturally conceived babies.

Are you a troll?

No. It is common in DC area to call anyone who does not agree with you a troll. The planet is already overpopulated and lacks the resources. We have millions of women who give birth to 5-10 healthy naturally conceived babies. What is the point of supporting IVF at all? They can stay barren as previous poster said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now all of the red states will just carve out statutory exceptions for IVF embryos and then back to usual. Bc that judge that cited the entire bible in his decision said it was the statute language that says embryos are children.

They can not force the clinics to offer IVF.

I cant see talented fertility docs and embryologists wanted to practice in a place like Alabama in this post Roe environment. Risky, stressful, no respect for your work.....overtime, this will erode the quality of fertility treatments available in these states as it has begun to erode the quality of maternity care available.

The price for IVF treatment will also skyrocket in the blue states due to demand.

These states are anti-pregnancy which means they are anti-baby.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now all of the red states will just carve out statutory exceptions for IVF embryos and then back to usual. Bc that judge that cited the entire bible in his decision said it was the statute language that says embryos are children.

They can not force the clinics to offer IVF.

I cant see talented fertility docs and embryologists wanted to practice in a place like Alabama in this post Roe environment. Risky, stressful, no respect for your work.....overtime, this will erode the quality of fertility treatments available in these states as it has begun to erode the quality of maternity care available.

There are some Republicans falling over themselves saying they support IVF, meanwhile Congress and the courts are stocked with Christian conservatives who sponsor and rule on legislation which will ultimately ban it. 125 Republicans in the House sponsored a bill that would ban IVF, the Life at Conception Act. Speaker Mike Johnson is a co-sponsor. https://newrepublic.com/post/179288/republicans-lying-supporting-ivf?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SF_TNR
In the Senate, Tammy Duckworth proposed legislation to protect IVF access and Senate Republicans blocked it.
https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2024/02/27/tammy-duckworth-ivf-legislation?utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Anonymous wrote:Now all of the red states will just carve out statutory exceptions for IVF embryos and then back to usual. Bc that judge that cited the entire bible in his decision said it was the statute language that says embryos are children.

They can not force the clinics to offer IVF.

Now all of the red states will just carve out statutory exceptions for IVF embryos and then back to usual. Bc that judge that cited the entire bible in his decision said it was the statute language that says embryos are children.