Alabama’s embryos ruling is a terrifying preview of...

[Tennesseer]

Isn't intentionally exposing children to hypothermia (minus 320 Fahrenheit) child abuse?

Alabama’s embryos ruling is a terrifying preview of another Trump presidency
Should Trump win in 2024, those staffing his administration will deploy the same philosophy for the same brutal outcomes.

Last week, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that embryos frozen in in vitro fertilization procedures are “children” under state law, and that a person responsible for their destruction can be held liable. The opinion is a staggering attack on every facet of reproductive health, including the freedom of people experiencing infertility who use assisted reproductive technologies. It represents the culmination of a movement to enshrine into law the unscientific and purely religious claim that life begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg, supplanting secular laws with supposedly “biblical” beliefs.

This theocratic dystopia is not an outlier, confined to a single state, but rather a roadmap should Donald Trump return to the White House. Recent reporting in Politico and The New York Times exposes further expansions of plans by Trump allies to Christianize the federal government, including the restriction and even criminalization of abortion.

At issue in the Alabama case was an 1872 state law allowing civil lawsuits for wrongful death of children and, more crucially, a 2018 anti-abortion amendment to the state constitution. The amendment, approved in a referendum, made it state law to “recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.” In last week’s case, the court’s majority reasoned that Alabama law equally protects “children” and “unborn children,” including frozen fertilized eggs, which the court referred to as “extrauterine children.”

Even more astonishing than the majority opinion, though, was the concurring opinion of the court’s chief justice, Tom Parker, a longtime proponent of citing biblical law to undergird his jurisprudence. Parker is a protegé of former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who first rose to national prominence for his unsuccessful battle in the early 2000s to install a 5,280-pound granite replica of the Ten Commandments inside the courthouse. (In his failed campaign for U.S. Senate in 2017, multiple women accused Moore of grooming or sexually assaulting them, with most alleged incidents occurring when he was an adult and the women were teenagers.)

Rest of article here: Alabama’s embryos ruling is a terrifying preview of another Trump presidency

[Pink Cashmere]

Have any of you heard about this? From an article:

The IVF community is reeling from an Alabama court decision that embryos created during in-vitro fertilization are "extrauterine children" and legally protected like any other child.

IVF advocates say the ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court could have far-reaching consequences for millions of Americans struggling to get pregnant, especially those living in states with "personhood" laws granting legal status to unborn children.

The court's ruling repeatedly invoked Christian faith and the Alabama Constitution, which specifically protects unborn children, although that has typically referred to a developing fetus inside a womb.

link

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am. So surprised that I’m not even sure what to say, except that I really feel for families that are already in the process in Alabama, or have been planning on going that route.

[Pink Cashmere]

I see that Tennesseer and I started similar threads at the same time. If I could just delete this one, I would. My apologies.

[pulmonarymd]

Babies should be made the old fashion way, with unprotected sex. Since they want to outlaw contraception, there will no longer be a shortage of babies to adopt, so there will be no new for all these new fangled, sciency stuff ways of having a bay. A win all around!

Welcome to Gilead!

Can you imagine the heads exploding if a judge who was a Muslim quoted the Koran in a judicial ruling?

[Tennesseer]

Feb 21, 2024 11:37:21 GMT -5 Pink Cashmere said:

I see that Tennesseer and I started similar threads at the same time. If I could just delete this one, I would. My apologies.

Not a problem. The mods will catch it and merge them.

[scgal]

YES a step in the right direction

[pulmonarymd]

Feb 21, 2024 13:17:30 GMT -5 scgal said:

YES a step in the right direction

1 So IVF should be illegal?
2 Someone who does something that causes a miscarriage committed murder/manslaughter?
3 A missed period followed by hemorrhage is a crime?
4 Someone who is pregnant can drive in a HOV lane?
5 A pregnant women can claim a tax deduction that year, even if she did not give birth?
6 Should birth control be illegal since it may interfere with pregnancy?

Until you are willing to provide help to people who are pregnant, this is all just an attempt to control women. But you continue to show your true colors. Since a significant number of fertilized ovum never implant, develop, or miscarry, this ruling is asinine. And the judge who quoted the bible is out of control. Would you be OK with a judge who is Muslim quoting the Koran in a ruling.

[grumpyhermit]

It is at least ideologically consistent if they think "life begins at conception". 

Though, you know, there's that whole constitution thing that is supposed to prevent laws from being made based on religious reasoning. 

My only hope is that this prevents some of the "pro-life" crowd from ever being parents. Would be a nice poetic justice. Let a rabid dog loose, and it's eventually going to bite you too. 

[Tennesseer]

Feb 21, 2024 13:17:30 GMT -5 scgal said:

YES a step in the right direction

[djAdvocate]

anyone have any statistics on venereal disease?

[pulmonarymd]

Incidence is increasing, bugs are more resistant to antibiotics, and the penicillin preparation used for neurosyphilis is in short supply. In other words, all good news. Will encourage people to keep it in their pants/s 

[djAdvocate]

it also directly corresponds to the New Dark Ages that the dominionists seem to want.

[teen persuasion]

There was a lot of chatter on Twitter about the unintended consequences people could see from this. One mention was if embryos are children, then miscarriages should be eligible for death benefits via insurance. Insurers won't like that. What about tax benefits?

On the other hand, there were a TON of women saying "I told you so - we knew IVF was next on the agenda! Contraception comes after that. And then women's voting rights..."

[happyhoix]

Feb 22, 2024 14:48:21 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

There was a lot of chatter on Twitter about the unintended consequences people could see from this. One mention was if embryos are children, then miscarriages should be eligible for death benefits via insurance. Insurers won't like that. What about tax benefits?

On the other hand, there were a TON of women saying "I told you so - we knew IVF was next on the agenda! Contraception comes after that. And then women's voting rights..."

I’m more scared of the ‘prove it was a miscarriage or we’ll charge you with murder’ move.

Sit in a hot tub? Drink a beer? You’re a murderess.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

I think it's hysterical (and not in a good way) that all of these idiot politicians are thinking of ways to hamper women's rights but have not given any further thought as to implications of what they decree.

Right now, the definition of preserving the life of a woman cannot be defined, and yet they are pressing on with other things?  Someone logical might step back and think 'hmmm, maybe we need to think this through a little more'.  Oh, that requires just a bit more of an IQ that apparently 99.9% of current politicians have.

[happyhoix]

Speaking of which, a hospital employee notified the cops about a woman who came to the hospital after a miscarriage. The employee ‘thought’ the woman was lying and had actually had an abortion.

Imagine sitting there mourning your lost child and here come the cops, demanding proof it was a miscarriage.

Can’t remember which state this was, think it was one of the Southern ones.

[Tennesseer]

My question:  Say a couple donate six eggs and sperm for in vitro fertilization.  The eggs are fertilized and frozen for future use.  The couple use two of the frozen embryos and have two children.  The couple no longer need the other frozenen embryos.  What happens to them.  The couple does not wish to donate the remaining embryos to other couples who are unable to have children including through  in vitro fertilization.  The donating couple, under current Alabama law are unable to destroy the  embryos as they are now considered actual children.

What then?  Do the embryos stay frozen for eternity if the state law remains in place forever?  Wouldn't that be child abuse?

Posting the above on the other thread about this issue.

[pulmonarymd]

Feb 22, 2024 15:22:09 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Speaking of which, a hospital employee notified the cops about a woman who came to the hospital after a miscarriage. The employee ‘thought’ the woman was lying and had actually had an abortion.

Imagine sitting there mourning your lost child and here come the cops, demanding proof it was a miscarriage.

Can’t remember which state this was, think it was one of the Southern ones.

Good way to get yourself fired up here. Short of a law requiring the police be notified about something, telling anyone that would be grounds for termination, for you are breaking confidentiality and patient privacy. And if you are a medical professional, sued and sanctioned. But anti-abortionists do not care about patient confidentiality(unless it is their own).

[Tennesseer]

My question: Say a couple donate six eggs and sperm for in vitro fertilization. The eggs are fertilized and frozen for future use. The couple use two of the frozen embryos and have two children. The couple no longer need the other frozenen embryos. What happens to them. The couple does not wish to donate the remaining embryos to other couples who are unable to have children including through in vitro fertilization. The donating couple, under current Alabama law are unable to destroy the embryos as they are now considered actual children.



What then? Do the embryos stay frozen for eternity if the state law remains in place forever? Wouldn't that be child abuse?

I posted the above on the other thread about this subject.  Maybe one of our posters who thought the law was a step in the right direction can answer my question.

[pulmonarymd]

Feb 22, 2024 15:28:01 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

My question:  Say a couple donate six eggs and sperm for in vitro fertilization.  The eggs are fertilized and frozen for future use.  The couple use two of the frozen embryos and have two children.  The couple no longer need the other frozenen embryos.  What happens to them.  The couple does not wish to donate the remaining embryos to other couples who are unable to have children including through  in vitro fertilization.  The donating couple, under current Alabama law are unable to destroy the  embryos as they are now considered actual children.

What then?  Do the embryos stay frozen for eternity if the state law remains in place forever?  Wouldn't that be child abuse?

Posting the above on the other thread about this issue.

Yes, they will have to pay to store them indefinitely.

Fun thing will be when they divorce, and one of them wants to destroy them so they do not become a parent against their will. Want to bet that the courts will allow implantation despite one of them objecting.

[Tennesseer]

Feb 22, 2024 15:30:54 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Feb 22, 2024 15:28:01 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

My question:  Say a couple donate six eggs and sperm for in vitro fertilization.  The eggs are fertilized and frozen for future use.  The couple use two of the frozen embryos and have two children.  The couple no longer need the other frozenen embryos.  What happens to them.  The couple does not wish to donate the remaining embryos to other couples who are unable to have children including through  in vitro fertilization.  The donating couple, under current Alabama law are unable to destroy the  embryos as they are now considered actual children.

What then?  Do the embryos stay frozen for eternity if the state law remains in place forever?  Wouldn't that be child abuse?

Posting the above on the other thread about this issue.

Yes, they will have to pay to store them indefinitely.

Fun thing will be when they divorce, and one of them wants to destroy them so they do not become a parent against their will. Want to bet that the courts will allow implantation despite one of them objecting.

Gee-maybe in vitro fertilization isn't a very good idea for multiple reasons. I guess too-bad, so-sad for childless couples in Alabama. I would imagine Alabama lawmakers might create a new law where couples going out of state for in vitro fertilization treatment will be prosecuted because they cannot be trusted to keep any unused frozen embryos...er....children frozen forever.

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Some of these states are going to become poorer and poorer as people opt to move away from suffocating new laws. 

[pulmonarymd]

Feb 22, 2024 15:38:31 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

Some of these states are going to become poorer and poorer as people opt to move away from suffocating new laws. 

I did think that would happen. Not sure anymore. People are short sighted, and they look for cheap places with low taxes. I think in part because they do not believe it will happen/affect them. How many people ignore medical advice-they play the odds, and they get away with it much of the time, leading them to think that medical professionals do not know what we are talking about.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Feb 22, 2024 15:42:33 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Feb 22, 2024 15:38:31 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

Some of these states are going to become poorer and poorer as people opt to move away from suffocating new laws. 

I did think that would happen. Not sure anymore. People are short sighted, and they look for cheap places with low taxes. I think in part because they do not believe it will happen/affect them. How many people ignore medical advice-they play the odds, and they get away with it much of the time, leading them to think that medical professionals do not know what we are talking about.

TD and I have already had discussions.  Healthcare locally is already horrendous and we know that as we age, we are going to be more dependent upon it.  While we are younger and healthy, it's not an issue to drive ourselves to Seattle.  That will not always be the case, so we know we are going to have to sell out and move closer in.  Both of us HATE the idea, but the healthcare here really sucks.  2 friends of already died from things that never should have happened.  

[Pink Cashmere]

Feb 22, 2024 15:30:44 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

My question: Say a couple donate six eggs and sperm for in vitro fertilization. The eggs are fertilized and frozen for future use. The couple use two of the frozen embryos and have two children. The couple no longer need the other frozenen embryos. What happens to them. The couple does not wish to donate the remaining embryos to other couples who are unable to have children including through in vitro fertilization. The donating couple, under current Alabama law are unable to destroy the embryos as they are now considered actual children.



What then? Do the embryos stay frozen for eternity if the state law remains in place forever? Wouldn't that be child abuse?

I posted the above on the other thread about this subject.  Maybe one of our posters who thought the law was a step in the right direction can answer my question.

I’ve seen it questioned whether freezing the embryos in the first place, could be considered child abuse under that law.

Then there are questions regarding how in some divorces, the settlement involves destroying whatever embryos are left. What happens in those cases?

And as a poster mentioned in the other thread, which I thought was interesting, if there is a miscarriage, does that mean a life insurance policy has to pay out, on the child?

It feels icky to think about, but I think there are legitimate questions about unintended consequences of this.

There is also concern that due to how IVF works to increase the chances of a baby being born, the costs may significantly increase, due to changes in the process because of the law, which also leads to concern about how health insurance companies will respond to those increased costs.

[Pink Cashmere]

chiver78 or any other mod, we are starting to say the same things on both threads, is it not best to merge them?

[pulmonarymd]

Feb 22, 2024 15:56:21 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Feb 22, 2024 15:42:33 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

I did think that would happen. Not sure anymore. People are short sighted, and they look for cheap places with low taxes. I think in part because they do not believe it will happen/affect them. How many people ignore medical advice-they play the odds, and they get away with it much of the time, leading them to think that medical professionals do not know what we are talking about.

TD and I have already had discussions.  Healthcare locally is already horrendous and we know that as we age, we are going to be more dependent upon it.  While we are younger and healthy, it's not an issue to drive ourselves to Seattle.  That will not always be the case, so we know we are going to have to sell out and move closer in.  Both of us HATE the idea, but the healthcare here really sucks.  2 friends of already died from things that never should have happened.  

Healthcare is very regional. People make decisions to move to a LCOL area when they first retire, not thinking about their healthcare needs. Suddenly, when they are 80, they start to need help, and the care and services available are substandard. We frequently see people in that situation move back here from Florida, or make a number of appointments when they come up for these reasons. Not thinking about what you are going to do when you get sick(something very likely to happen) when you live in East Bumfuck, should be part of your retirement planning.

My wife and are are starting to think about where we may wind up when we are done working. Access to high quality care is high on our list, even if it may be more costly

[resolution]

Feb 22, 2024 15:28:28 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Feb 22, 2024 15:22:09 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Speaking of which, a hospital employee notified the cops about a woman who came to the hospital after a miscarriage. The employee ‘thought’ the woman was lying and had actually had an abortion.

Imagine sitting there mourning your lost child and here come the cops, demanding proof it was a miscarriage.

Can’t remember which state this was, think it was one of the Southern ones.

Good way to get yourself fired up here. Short of a law requiring the police be notified about something, telling anyone that would be grounds for termination, for you are breaking confidentiality and patient privacy. And if you are a medical professional, sued and sanctioned. But anti-abortionists do not care about patient confidentiality(unless it is their own).

Isn't that pretty much what happened in the Ohio case where they charged the woman with abuse of a corpse? It was one of the nurses that reported her to the police after she miscarried.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/26/ohio-jury-woman-miscarriage-abuse-corpse

[Tennesseer]

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I would guess they'd have to make it a law you can only fertilize and implant one egg at a time or you would have to implant/immediately donate any unused eggs.  I can't imagine these people thinking it's acceptable to keep eggs frozen indefinitely if they are considered people because you can't put people on deep freeze it's inhumane.

If you can continue to store embryos indefinitely it circles back to the fact they are clumps of cells.  Cells can be frozen almost indefinitely.  If they are clumps of cells that can be frozen then they aren't people and there goes that law out the window.

This is likely the first shot to eventually ban IVF all together.  They are testing to see what they can get away with.