3 ms·

The census will have to add lines for "unborn people (metabolically active)" and "unborn people (metabolic stasis)". /s IVF is the domain of the upper middle-c

The census will have to add lines for "unborn people (metabolically active)" and "unborn people (metabolic stasis)". /s IVF is the domain of the upper middle-class and the rich. So around 80% of Alabama IVF users are likely to be Republicans in agreement with white nationalist lite, Christian fundamentalist patriarchy. Complaints will be ignored by the self-righteous triumphalist legislature proud of ramming through their anti-freedom agenda.

ProllyInfamous 3y ago
>domain of the upper middle-class and the rich ... Christian fundamentalist patriarchy Agreed. If they're anything like my favorite voted-for-Reagan construction clients, they'll scream "Build the wall!" in front of their non-citizen housekeeperS; while Mr. goes to strip clubs and Mrs. has vibrators (Reagan campaigned against both, as obscene). ---- Only so much time in the day for such hypocracy!!! ---- I read here on HN, just this morning, something to the effect of: >>Our global economy has become an amalgamation of the worst parts of both capitalism and communism And the above example (from my favorite client) is spot-on(-true).
- fred_is_fred 3y ago
  >> Our global economy has become an amalgamation of the worst parts of both capitalism and communism... and religion
olliej 3y ago
Much like the abortion bans these states are enforcing today, and just as was the case in the past, these laws do not impact the rich. The rich could get abortions before roe v wade, they can get them today. The same applies to IVF, but now even if you were middle class with health insurance that did cover IVF (it's unclear whether this is mandatory or not), health insurance does not cover travel or accommodation needed for treatment.
mindslight 3y ago
I was right there with you on the outrage, having read a few other articles on the subject. But a few details in this article made me look at the actual decision, and the specific outcome is much less obtuse than has been implied. Bad facts make bad law, as they say. Basically two couples went through IVF, created embryos, and those embryos were frozen. Some other patient at the hospital gained access to the lab through an "unsecured" door, opened up the frozen storage container, pulled the embryos out, and promptly dropped them (extreme cold), destroying them. The plaintiffs are looking at the hospital for civil damages, due to the negligence of not securing the storage. The court's decision seems like a straightforward application of how Alabama's constitution was previously amended regarding the unborn. Philosophically, I do not agree with that amendment - especially as its main aim is as a wedge for preventing straightforward women's medical care in favor of more lethal options. But I've also got a hard time brushing aside these would-be parents' desire for accountability from the hospital for the deaths of what they had hoped would be their children. In this case the "rights of the unborn" and the rights and desires of the parents were aligned (rather than being in conflict as in most situations of this topic). The hospital should not be allowed to hide behind the standard disclaimers about medical outcomes not being assured, or the vanishing "market value" of tissue samples, to shirk basic responsibility that would have easily prevented the plaintiffs' horrible losses. I do agree the implications of the decision being available as a precedent aren't great on a few fronts, but that responsibility rests on the constitutional amendment itself.
- icandoit 3y ago
  My latest newborn has to have two bracelets and never leave the room. I understand the concern, but would like to push back on the increase in cost and restrictions. Safety-maximalism will maximize expense, we agree on that? As a customer can I opt into a safety/cost ratio from 20 years ago? With today's technology and medicine that would result in affordable abundance.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    I agree with your general point. I just went through something similar myself with a "locked ward" that basically meant I had to precariously balance the cafeteria trays I was carrying to put a disease-ridden phone up to my ear, while seemingly like a trivial speedbump for anybody wanting to get in surreptitiously. But here we're talking about access control for a staff-only area that's being used for longer term storage, which doesn't seem onerous at all. Especially with IVF where they should be taking identification/labeling seriously because people understandably don't want to end up carrying someone else's baby due to mix ups.

ProllyInfamous 3y ago

>domain of the upper middle-class and the rich ... Christian fundamentalist patriarchy Agreed. If they're anything like my favorite voted-for-Reagan construction clients, they'll scream "Build the wall!" in front of their non-citizen housekeeperS; while Mr. goes to strip clubs and Mrs. has vibrators (Reagan campaigned against both, as obscene). ---- Only so much time in the day for such hypocracy!!! ---- I read here on HN, just this morning, something to the effect of: >>Our global economy has become an amalgamation of the worst parts of both capitalism and communism And the above example (from my favorite client) is spot-on(-true).

fred_is_fred 3y ago
>> Our global economy has become an amalgamation of the worst parts of both capitalism and communism... and religion

olliej 3y ago

Much like the abortion bans these states are enforcing today, and just as was the case in the past, these laws do not impact the rich. The rich could get abortions before roe v wade, they can get them today. The same applies to IVF, but now even if you were middle class with health insurance that did cover IVF (it's unclear whether this is mandatory or not), health insurance does not cover travel or accommodation needed for treatment.

mindslight 3y ago

I was right there with you on the outrage, having read a few other articles on the subject. But a few details in this article made me look at the actual decision, and the specific outcome is much less obtuse than has been implied. Bad facts make bad law, as they say. Basically two couples went through IVF, created embryos, and those embryos were frozen. Some other patient at the hospital gained access to the lab through an "unsecured" door, opened up the frozen storage container, pulled the embryos out, and promptly dropped them (extreme cold), destroying them. The plaintiffs are looking at the hospital for civil damages, due to the negligence of not securing the storage. The court's decision seems like a straightforward application of how Alabama's constitution was previously amended regarding the unborn. Philosophically, I do not agree with that amendment - especially as its main aim is as a wedge for preventing straightforward women's medical care in favor of more lethal options. But I've also got a hard time brushing aside these would-be parents' desire for accountability from the hospital for the deaths of what they had hoped would be their children. In this case the "rights of the unborn" and the rights and desires of the parents were aligned (rather than being in conflict as in most situations of this topic). The hospital should not be allowed to hide behind the standard disclaimers about medical outcomes not being assured, or the vanishing "market value" of tissue samples, to shirk basic responsibility that would have easily prevented the plaintiffs' horrible losses. I do agree the implications of the decision being available as a precedent aren't great on a few fronts, but that responsibility rests on the constitutional amendment itself.

icandoit 3y ago
My latest newborn has to have two bracelets and never leave the room. I understand the concern, but would like to push back on the increase in cost and restrictions. Safety-maximalism will maximize expense, we agree on that? As a customer can I opt into a safety/cost ratio from 20 years ago? With today's technology and medicine that would result in affordable abundance.
- mindslight 3y ago
  I agree with your general point. I just went through something similar myself with a "locked ward" that basically meant I had to precariously balance the cafeteria trays I was carrying to put a disease-ridden phone up to my ear, while seemingly like a trivial speedbump for anybody wanting to get in surreptitiously. But here we're talking about access control for a staff-only area that's being used for longer term storage, which doesn't seem onerous at all. Especially with IVF where they should be taking identification/labeling seriously because people understandably don't want to end up carrying someone else's baby due to mix ups.