5 ms·

So if a couple creates N fertilized eggs, what is their legal jeopardy for not having all N eventually implanted? Can rhe state criminally or civilly charge the

So if a couple creates N fertilized eggs, what is their legal jeopardy for not having all N eventually implanted? Can rhe state criminally or civilly charge them if abandoned? Suppose the intended mother becomes unable to carry, for example due to something incontrovertable like a hysterectomy? Will she be prosecuted for child abandonment or homicide? Don't do IVF in Alabama, I guess. Although when enough scripture is cited in the judgement, the ruling might become more easily overturned.

QuercusMax 3y ago
What effects does this have on inheritance, child support, etc? If someone burns down the facility that holds frozen embryos, will they be charged with mass murder? If there's a natural disaster, will they be counted among the dead? The whole thing makes no sense and clearly nobody thought about any of the consequences of such a ruling.
- sillywalk 3y ago
  This sounds insane. FTA: "The court’s decision specifically permits three couples whose frozen embryos were accidentally destroyed in a Mobile, Alabama, reproductive clinic to sue the facility for wrongful death."
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
sph87 3y ago
It was a very narrow ruling regarding civil liability for wrongful death as it applies to the word “children”. Some insurance companies tried to say that these families had no financial recourse from embryos being destroyed because a certain law did not apply since they were not children. They explicitly state that this does not confer criminal liability due to different wording in the law. It also states that this does not negate waiver, estoppel or affirmative defenses. It also upholds the dismissal of the case due to lack of wantonness or negligence on the part of the defendants. This is the media blowing something up for click bait. To answer your questions in order: None. No. No.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  It seems like the specific case here is narrow, but the implications are quite broad. The case applies a broad 2018 "sanctity of life" Constitutional amendment to a specific question around IVF clinic liability, and finds that this amendment makes the clinics liable. It's very hard to believe this ruling won't have very serious implications for the IVF industry in Alabama, at a minimum. And when you've got State Supreme Court judges writing things like "It is as if the People of Alabama took what was spoken of the prophet Jeremiah and applied it to every unborn person in this state: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, Before you were born I sanctified you.’ Jeremiah 1:5,” there's every reason to believe that further exciting rulings could be expected from that court.
  - sph87 3y ago
    Negative. The court actually upholds the lower courts dismissal of the case. It simply holds that the word “children” in a law written in the 1800s includes the unborn. That is that an insurance company can’t argue that because this thing wasn’t born, it’s not a child, and they are immune from liability. They cite partial birth mishap as one reason for that. Like if a doctor accidentally decapites a child during delivery, their insurance would still be liable. Or if a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer could be held financially liable for both. Had they ruled the other way, that would not be the case. The criminal statute had been updated in 2008 with different wording to clarify this matter. Again, very very narrow ruling. Experts in a field made a nuanced decision that the media is hyping for views.
    - sterlind 3y ago
      Considering an assembly of ~10 cells an "unborn child," to the point of allowing wrongful death suits, seems quite extreme to me. That's a far cry from accidentally decapitating a baby during delivery. Also, embryos are so early that the very mechanics of life are different. Embryos last decades in cold storage, good luck trying that with a fetus. They're not in a womb. They're not on a path to becoming babies until they're successfully implanted. These "experts" are straining the law far beyond any possible plain meaning or original intent.
silverquiet 3y ago
> Although when enough scripture is cited in the judgement, the ruling might become more easily overturned. I don’t think you appreciate how right wing the Supreme Court has been stacked if you think that this will be a negative in their eyes.

QuercusMax 3y ago

What effects does this have on inheritance, child support, etc? If someone burns down the facility that holds frozen embryos, will they be charged with mass murder? If there's a natural disaster, will they be counted among the dead? The whole thing makes no sense and clearly nobody thought about any of the consequences of such a ruling.

sillywalk 3y ago
This sounds insane. FTA: "The court’s decision specifically permits three couples whose frozen embryos were accidentally destroyed in a Mobile, Alabama, reproductive clinic to sue the facility for wrongful death."
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

sph87 3y ago

It was a very narrow ruling regarding civil liability for wrongful death as it applies to the word “children”. Some insurance companies tried to say that these families had no financial recourse from embryos being destroyed because a certain law did not apply since they were not children. They explicitly state that this does not confer criminal liability due to different wording in the law. It also states that this does not negate waiver, estoppel or affirmative defenses. It also upholds the dismissal of the case due to lack of wantonness or negligence on the part of the defendants. This is the media blowing something up for click bait. To answer your questions in order: None. No. No.

matthewdgreen 3y ago
It seems like the specific case here is narrow, but the implications are quite broad. The case applies a broad 2018 "sanctity of life" Constitutional amendment to a specific question around IVF clinic liability, and finds that this amendment makes the clinics liable. It's very hard to believe this ruling won't have very serious implications for the IVF industry in Alabama, at a minimum. And when you've got State Supreme Court judges writing things like "It is as if the People of Alabama took what was spoken of the prophet Jeremiah and applied it to every unborn person in this state: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, Before you were born I sanctified you.’ Jeremiah 1:5,” there's every reason to believe that further exciting rulings could be expected from that court.
- sph87 3y ago
  Negative. The court actually upholds the lower courts dismissal of the case. It simply holds that the word “children” in a law written in the 1800s includes the unborn. That is that an insurance company can’t argue that because this thing wasn’t born, it’s not a child, and they are immune from liability. They cite partial birth mishap as one reason for that. Like if a doctor accidentally decapites a child during delivery, their insurance would still be liable. Or if a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer could be held financially liable for both. Had they ruled the other way, that would not be the case. The criminal statute had been updated in 2008 with different wording to clarify this matter. Again, very very narrow ruling. Experts in a field made a nuanced decision that the media is hyping for views.
  - sterlind 3y ago
    Considering an assembly of ~10 cells an "unborn child," to the point of allowing wrongful death suits, seems quite extreme to me. That's a far cry from accidentally decapitating a baby during delivery. Also, embryos are so early that the very mechanics of life are different. Embryos last decades in cold storage, good luck trying that with a fetus. They're not in a womb. They're not on a path to becoming babies until they're successfully implanted. These "experts" are straining the law far beyond any possible plain meaning or original intent.

silverquiet 3y ago

> Although when enough scripture is cited in the judgement, the ruling might become more easily overturned. I don’t think you appreciate how right wing the Supreme Court has been stacked if you think that this will be a negative in their eyes.