Alabama Supreme Court Rules That Frozen Embryos Are 'Children'
Source: Huff Post
Feb 18, 2024, 11:01 PM EST
The Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday that frozen embryos are children, which pro-choice rights groups have warned could have dangerous implications for fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization.
The Alabama Supreme Court on Friday reversed Mobile County Circuit Court Judge Jill Parrish Phillips decision to dismiss a lawsuit in which a couple sued an Alabama fertility clinic and hospital for the wrongful death of their frozen embryos in a ruling that was riddled with theology. The couples frozen embryos were destroyed after a hospital patient who accessed the freezer that held the embryos dropped them on the floor. The ruling means that the couple can sue for wrongful death.
[T]he Wrongful Death of a Minor Act is sweeping and unqualified. It applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation, the ruling said. It is not the role of this Court to craft a new limitation based on our own view of what is or is not wise public policy. That is especially true where, as here, the People of this State have adopted a Constitutional amendment directly aimed at stopping courts from excluding unborn life from legal protection.
The ruling pointed to the Alabama Constitution Section 36.06, which argues that each person was made in Gods image, meaning each life has an incalculable value that cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God.
Read more: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alabama-ruling-frozen-embryos-children_n_65d29a77e4b043f1c0aba2b9?nmq
no_hypocrisy
(46,116 posts)goes on the fritz, that's mass murder, correct?
BumRushDaShow
(129,053 posts)There is a whole zealot wing of the christo-fascist far right who want to get rid of IVF (I expect instead favoring selective "rape", Gilead-style, for reproduction).
Magoo48
(4,712 posts)wolfie001
(2,240 posts)The rest of the region can work on changing their voting patterns.
bucolic_frolic
(43,173 posts)Heck, a billionaire could use 500 Embryo-Children in the Umbrella Financial Asvisory Fund, no?
EYESORE 9001
(25,939 posts)Im sure some tax accountant to the rich is working all the angles.
BumRushDaShow
(129,053 posts)and since red state loons don't want IVF, guess who gets the population?
MurrayDelph
(5,297 posts)"See this Petri dish? ..."
vanlassie
(5,675 posts)progressoid
(49,991 posts)raging moderate
(4,305 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 23, 2024, 08:44 AM - Edit history (1)
The worker who flipped them out of the freezer would actually be their rescuer.
Javaman
(62,530 posts)will the business or facility be charges with murder?
fucking repukes are nuts.
EmmaLee E
(170 posts)as negligent homicide.
Trueblue Texan
(2,430 posts)...But HA! HA! HA! Serves abortion foes right! I said this was going to happen! A lot of anti-abortion folks are pissed that women end their pregnancies when they themselves can't carry a child! They are all for in vitro fertilization with little regard for the frozen embryos. Now they're gonna have to live with the legalized "reality" that they are responsible for untold number of abortions in the form of dead or abandoned frozen embryos. Serves. Them. Right.
But it's still f*cked up.
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)Both are rabidly anti-choice Catholics.
When I learned how they'd conceived, I noted that they'd likely "pruned" some embryos, selecting over others, or left some frozen in the lab - effectively aborting them. I still don't know how they square that circle.
DBoon
(22,366 posts)If you can believe in transubstantiation, you can believe IVF is OK despite church teachings to the contrary
apnu
(8,756 posts)Calling it now. There is no bottom for the American Taliban.
GB_RN
(2,355 posts)Talibama for no reason.
No offense to those in the state who dont hold to the Talibama doctrines
Squaredeal
(398 posts)A criminal charge, which the patient who dropped the embryos could face in state court.
What about someone who transports the embryos out of state if theyre not the parents? Is that a criminal Federal kidnapping offense?
After a divorce, does an ex-spouse have the right to the embryos and collect child support if one of them brings them to full term? Need some more money from your ex, just give birth to another embryo. You could even hire another female to carry it to birth. This could be a way to get back at an ex, who might have gone on with his or her life, by repeatedly have more of their embryos birthed long after the divorce.
BumRushDaShow
(129,053 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 19, 2024, 11:30 AM - Edit history (1)
THAT actually has case law - https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/minority-trial/case-divorce-destroy-eggs/
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/what-happens-to-frozen-embryos-in-a-divorce-173018631.html
twodogsbarking
(9,754 posts)Grins
(7,217 posts)Referring to their sacred Tanakh, aka, the Old Testament, V. 1.0, unabridged.
CCExile
(469 posts)Can we freeze conservatives until THEY are needed?
DBoon
(22,366 posts)usaf-vet
(6,186 posts)For example, you could capture and freeze an egg from any mammal (to simplify, excluding reptiles, amphibians, etc.).
Would that frozen egg, aka embryo, be a viable "baby"?
Wonder Why
(3,205 posts)area51
(11,909 posts)OMGWTF
(3,957 posts)Once you're born it's a hearty "fuck you" especially if you're not part of the lucky sperm club.
k55f5r
(169 posts)Grins
(7,217 posts)The state's argument is pure crackpottery. But who gives A PATIENT access to the freezer that held the embryos?
Wonder Why
(3,205 posts)OMGWTF
(3,957 posts)republianmushroom
(13,597 posts)Sure hope sperm is next, millions of tax deductions, millions.
SergeStorms
(19,201 posts)On a good afternoon I could rub out millions of tax deductions. Do I have to name each individual sperm? Get birth certificates for each?
They're opening up Pandora's box here.
keopeli
(3,522 posts)Chainfire
(17,542 posts)BaronChocula
(1,559 posts)Embryos don't have developed genitals. Given Club Vitriol's yen for shunning the nonbinary, this gives them more "people" to hate on.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,586 posts)"For that matter, all masturbatory emissions, where his sperm was clearly not seeking an egg, could be termed reckless abandonment."
Marthe48
(16,963 posts)And shoot someone on 5th Ave. and get away with it?
Could the embryo get a driver's license?
Vote?
So wish the maniacs would stop running the rw nut house
OverBurn
(950 posts)Only one. Which do you choose asshole conservatives?
There's a difference, isn't there.
Layzeebeaver
(1,624 posts)Thought it said, Alabama Supreme Court Rules That Frozen Embryos Are 'Chicken'
Then again, it is Alabama.
pfitz59
(10,381 posts)how can this be constitutional?
Old Crank
(3,589 posts)What gender is God? or is he a hermaphrodite?
SomewhereInTheMiddle
(285 posts)The "image of God" language is not in the constitutional amendment.
I assume that is a quote from the court decision.
I would strongly argue that explicit references to any deity as a basis for public policy has no place in any official US or state government writing, with the Declaration of Independence being grandfathered in because it predates the US Constitution.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)of the Alabama constitution:
Hmm, wonder where they picked up that wording from? Why, from the treasonous, slave-holding Confederate States, of course:
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3968
"God" then appears in the constitution only to say people have the right to worship God, and in a wording of an oath - nowhere else. So his argument is built on a hypocritical invocation of God by slave-owners.
The fundamentalist judge quotes endless Christians from centuries ago to justify his claim that blastocysts are "the image of God" (many from the time when no one had even seen an egg, sperm or newly-fertilized blastocyst, and had no idea of genes, chromosomes or anything else that conception involves). He's got Calvin and Thomas Aquinas on his side, guys! He quotes Blackstone, a British judge favoured by conservatives in love with the 18th century, and though he gives Blackstone's view that life "begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb", he then contradicts that by saying "Similarly, Alabama law has recognized that human life begins at conception" - when, of course, that is not "similar", but "quite different".
If this opinion were given by a lower court, and a non-fundamentalist superior judge got a chance to review it, they'd rip it to shreds as completely un-American, and an attempt to establish a state religion.
Old Crank
(3,589 posts)because it will no longer be posible to stay in business when an accident sets you up for law suits do all the existing children get shipped to their parents or become wards of the state?
SouthernDem4ever
(6,617 posts)only way I can describe the Alabama SC.
republianmushroom
(13,597 posts)female prison guard 7 month pregnant
has labor pains on the job
prison doesn't let her leave for hours
baby is still born
hospital says if she got there earlier they could have saved the fetus
shes suing and the state is arguing Just because several statutes define an individual to include an unborn child does not mean that the Fourteenth Amendment does the same,
fuck this state. her supervisors should be charged with manslaughter at the least since the state has spend years claiming a fetus is a person. they contributed to its death.
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/11/texas-prison-lawsuit-fetal-rights/
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218171839
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)When the People of Alabama adopted (the sanctity of life provision of the state constitution), they did not use the term inviolability, with its secular connotations, but rather they chose the term sanctity, with all of its connotations, Parker wrote. This kind of acceptance is not foreign to our Constitution, which in its preamble invok[es] the favor and guidance of Almighty God, and which declares that all men are endowed [with life] by their Creator. The Alabama Constitutions recognition that human life is an endowment from God emphasizes a foundational principle of English common law, which has been expressly incorporated as part of the law of Alabama.
Parker then went on to cite two overtly Christian texts Theology Today and Manhattan Declaration: The Call of Christian Conscience to help define the phrase sanctity of life and argue that life begins at conception because, all human beings bear Gods image from the moment of conception.
From there, Parker went on to quote the Bible and another theological text that explained, in his words, the significance of mans creation in Gods image.
Justice Greg Cook, the courts lone dissenter, avoided the biblical arguments and instead focused on the laws as written, noting that nothing in the wrongful death act or Alabama law has defined an embryo as a child. Such a definition would be necessary to reach the courts opinion, and it would need to be reached with legal arguments, not biblical ones.
https://www.alreporter.com/2024/02/19/alabama-supreme-court-rules-frozen-embryos-are-children-cites-the-bible-in-opinion/
"The Manhattan Declaration" is an infamous right-wing "declaration" that was done to oppose LGBT rights, abortion, stem cell research and so on. This is like citing a Republican manifesto in a decision.
Some discussed the document as a political strategy, regarding it as the religious right's effort to re-establish its relevance in the public square,[19][20] but others noted that younger generations of evangelicals and Catholics were less likely to oppose same-sex marriage and more likely to prioritize economic issues over social, and that the document was thus unlikely to win them over.[20][21] Stevens-Arroyo criticized fellow Catholics who signed the declaration for aligning themselves with evangelicals in what he described as opposition to the separation of church and state.[22]
The declaration's invocation of Martin Luther King and of the principles of civil disobedience has also been questioned.[23][24] An editorial in the Los Angeles Times characterized the invocation of King as "specious" and criticized the document, belittling the "anecdotes" regarding restrictions on Christians' religious freedom as "of the sort radio talk-show hosts purvey" or from outside the United States, and noting that federal law already exempts "believers in some cases from having to comply with applicable laws."[25]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Declaration:_A_Call_of_Christian_Conscience#Criticism
dalton99a
(81,513 posts)-------------------------------
This asshole went to Darmouth and Vanderbilt
underpants
(182,819 posts)Yes this article is from 2021.
Alabama Will Now Allow Yoga In Its Public Schools (But Students Can't Say 'Namaste')
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey has signed a bill to allow public schools to offer yoga, ending a ban that stood for nearly 30 years. Christian conservatives who back the ban said yoga would open the door for people to be converted to Hinduism.
The new law allows yoga to be offered as an elective for grades K-12. While it erases a ban that, over the years, some schools had not realized existed, it also imposes restrictions on how yoga should be taught. Students won't be allowed to say, "Namaste," for instance. Meditation is not allowed.
"Chanting, mantras, mudras, use of mandalas, induction of hypnotic states, guided imagery, and namaste greetings shall be expressly prohibited," the bill states. It also requires English names be used for all poses and exercises. And before any students try a tree pose, they'll need a parent's permission slip.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999020140/its-now-legal-to-practice-yoga-in-alabamas-public-schools