Alabama Supreme Court Cites the Bible in Terrifying Embryo Ruling

A new ruling out of Alabama may spell the beginning of the end of the third-party fertility industry—and its reasoning partially relies on a verse from the Bible.

On Friday, the Alabama Supreme Court decided that embryos created through in-vitro fertilization would be protected under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, effectively classifying single-celled, fertilized eggs as children.

The case, known as LePage v. Mobile Infirmary Clinic, Inc, rested upon an argument by several intended parents that their “embryonic children” had been victims of a wrongful death when an intruder broke into the IVF clinic, dropping trays containing some of the embryos and ultimately destroying them. Source​

Fascinating court ruling coming out of the bowls of the extreme right using religious belief to codify into law that a fertilized egg is a minor child.

As predicted, the right has completely abandoned any semblance of governance under law or legal precedent and have moved to just justifications based on their chosen religious deity.

This comes on the heals of women almost going septic because doctors are scared to preform medically necessary abortions and the states attempting to force small children to have their rapists children.

This is just the start

 

Sounds an awful lot like an Establishment Clause violation...?

 

One would think but with the Republican stacked religious court — who knows. Rule of law and precedent means very little.

 

I wonder if this will go to the direction of eventually ruling out in-vitro fertilization. Since the probability of a successful pregnancy is about 30% per implanted embryo, this means that 1/3 of the embryos are willfully "killed" during the process.

These people never think about the consequences of their extremist actions.

 

You and I do not usually agree, but in this issue, we do. People all have reasons for their opinions, but there's a difference between not approving of someone else's personal choice and thinking you have a right to dictate yours. Religion is not a justification here in any way. Religion is personal; you can't force one belief on another without violating the other persons belief.
This particular issue is in desperate need of some common sense values.

 

A Supreme Court decision based on passages from a work of fiction!!!
Truly disturbing.

 

I agree. I support people having freedom to believe in whatever they like — they should be stopped however when those beliefs start being ingrained into law.

There are many very disturbing religious laws in some of the world religions and once that box is opened it’s very hard to close it — look to many of the middle eastern nations for an example.

 

That true- and at times most religions have exercised considerable abuse. Many of those same ones at other times have done quite a bit of good, and helped people stabilize their lives. The christian religion can be credited with a great deal of effort to the good, but was also part of the Spanish Inquisitions.
I fall outside the box here. I fully believe in a higher power, but not a god. Mother Nature makes the real rules on successful living, but you don't ask for favors nor do harm thinking you are the deputy of god. What's more, if you pay attention and learn- it's easy and the rules work like magic. I've taught it for a very long time, but with limited success. The catch is that once you are programmed with the stuff people invented, it's hard to change. Religion can be the toughest barrier of all. When you think you are doing God's work, every other kind of reasoning has less authority.

 

Just a few thoughts about the arrival of Alabama's frozen children.

1. What happens to the people who stop paying their monthly storage fees to keep their child/children frozen?
Will they be criminally charged with neglect and abandonment?

2. If the freezer goes on the fritz will the owner of the clinic be criminally charged with mass murder?

3. Will the clinic's refrigeration guy who didn't get to the clinic in time also be charged?

4. Will the number of frozen children in Alabama be added to the number of children Alabama has in foster care and the next US census?

5. Can the owners of their frozen children claim them as dependents when they file their taxes?


'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 couple’s 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 God’s 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

 

Theocracies are evil

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
-Judge Leon M. Bazile (January 6, 1959)

 

Where is the link required for this to go into current events? and what Bible verse that was referenced?

If a woman has a miscarriage because someone did something illegal that caused it. I'd hope the law would do something about it. Anyone with a heart should feel the same way.

 

I am with you on a higher power — I just don’t think we would be capable of comprehending such a being (or beings) and books written over hundreds of years and edited by kings would definitely not be able to express it.

 

“We believe that each human being, from the moment of conception, is made in the image of God, created by Him to reflect His likeness. 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 (NKJV 1982),” the opinion read.

Also the source is the last word in the quoted text that says “source” — I wish there was a way to format it so it was blue.

 

'Every Sperm Is Sacred - The Meaning of Life'

 

This means the folks who made this ruling feel safe enough to use religion in their justification for a secular law. That's not good news.

 

Batshit cray cray Christo-fascists are known for that.

"The ruling pointed to the Alabama Constitution Section 36.06, which argues that each person was made in God’s image, meaning each life has an incalculable value that “cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God.”

Alabama Constitution.

"I, § 36.06. (a) This state acknowledges, declares, and affirms that it is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life."

(b) This state further acknowledges, declares, and affirms that it is the public policy of this state to ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child in all manners and measures lawful and appropriate.

(c) Nothing in this constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion


Alabama Constitution of 1901, Art. I, § 36.06 - Codes - FindLaw

FindLaw
https://codes.findlaw.com › al-const-art-i-sect-36-

 

Its ignorant in the sense that in an in-vitro treatment, the woman is medicated to produce multiple eggs, and one is planted in the womb, while others are either frozen or discarded. A fertilized cell can be frozen and brought back to life, while a human being obviously cannot.

 

Actually, more than one are usually implanted, often between two and three. This is a game of educated guessing as to maximize the chance of a pregnancy, while minimizing the chance of giving birth to multiplets. With the price of the procedure, hopeful future parents cannot afford to have too many failed trials.

Second, if there are embryos left over after a successful pregnancy, they are often donated for embryo adoption, rather than being discarded. The whole thing is a rather complicated process that can make someone's head spin. But the reality is that it is a game of numbers and statistics, apparently god had the intention to throw away a lot of those fertilized eggs by making them not viable. It would serve the religious extremists who come up with legislation like this one to look into the science, but that's probably the last thing they are interested in. What they really want is control.

 

Whether or not they are donated is up to the parents, with full knowledge of the fact that if used, the child would be 100% theirs biologically. This is why most donations go to stem cell research, which would be illegal under this law.

Also, transferring 1 fertilized egg to the woman is the standard, not 2-3

Single vs Multiple Embryos
https://fertilityinstitute.com/blog...ansfer during,transfers for most IVF patients.
A single embryo transfer during IVF is the standard of care for the majority of people trying to conceive. The CDC, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology all recommend one embryo transfers for most IVF patients.

Why is that? It comes down to safety and success rates.

With IVF therapy, your primary goal is to have a healthy baby. When transferring double or multiple embryos, your chances of having twins or multiple births also understandably goes up. However, risks to the baby’s and your health also increase.

 

Looks to me the court is defining "Children" as born and unborn offspring--which is a valid definitition. And they site the 14th amendment as protection against unborn children along with non citizens etc. The actual document is over 100 pages long---but getting up to page 24---its obvious the ruling wasn't based on a Bible verse. Its based on the concept of a developing human being as having the right to life.

Plus, I have to say---since the children weren't in the bodies of the mother ---doesn't that mean they can be protected? Isn't that what I've always heard from pro abortion folks? That abortion is a right because women need to control their bodies? There are no women's bodies in this scenerio being "afflicted" by an embryo.

All that said---I don't see this as a wrongful dealth. Not sure I would hold the clinic responsible for the actions of another person that happened to be a patient.

 

About 20% of all pregnancies end in natural spontaneous abortions.
Does the antiabortion crowd demonize God for this too?

 

I would say absolutely that the person who broke in is subject to legal repercussions from the act of destroying the embryos. It cost the parents time and money that will have to be done again. I'm even willing to allow for a single count of wrongful death, in that the actions of the one who broke in cause the effort to fail. But not multiple counts. However, the Bible should never be used as a basis of secular law and this should be declared a mistrial by a higher court.

 

No they demonize the woman for daring to miscarry

 

Everyone needs something to make sense of life, see some order, a means to understand and perhaps have some control over your life. If you believe in nothing, that state is scary, even terrifying.
That presented an opportunity for those who claimed to be the messengers of the unknown powers to become priests, and beliefs become religions... and religions to become hugely powerful.

My skepticism never allowed me to accept the premises of religion I was being taught as a child, but at the same time, I would ask what the real power was; it was obvious it existed in some form.
I'm not a person who left religion. I was sent to church and sunday school as a child, but I was never really onboard.

I am an extremely fortunate person in that I had the opportunity to learn directly from nature in circumstances where no man-made interference existed, kind of another world. The rules of life are openly demonstrated there 24/7, and everything thrives- but most people given the opportunity don't see the rules at work and don't ask why things there work so perfectly. I did just that, and while it took years, once I saw it- I realized the proof was everywhere, and simple. That was 40 years ago, and today I still live by the same 3 rules that nature teaches every day. That's my bible; 3 rules I can write on a business card. Because I live by them, I've become successful at all the things I wanted to, except the ability to convince others they can do the same thing. As a higher power, nature doesn't make promises or give blessings that people feel they need, it just shows us how to find what we have and make the most of it. Most fear they can't do that without help, and won't let go of the things they already believe in. It's as simple as the old saying about leading a horse to water.

I see religion as a kind of evolutionary step that serves a purpose, and that eventually we may outgrow the need for. But it's still true that people need confidence in something greater than themselves to believe in, and the need for that makes us susceptible to illusions and deception. If we ever grow out of that, we will thrive. If we do not, we will become extinct; be the only species ever to be fully responsible for ending itself.

Most of the conflicts of today relate to people's ability to set illusions and deceptions aside and trust what works. If we could all do that, we probably would- but that ability seems to be in decline. The world is still full of false prophets, and most of them aren't religious at all. If we destroy religion but follow those false prophets, fail to replace religion's values with a better foundation for beliefs, we are- screwed.

Despite differences, I'm sure you are a thinking person, evaluating, usually having a foundation for what you conclude. Can you define it?

 

I will agree with you here that no bodily autonomy rights of the woman, nor of the man, are violated in this case. Whether that provides a right to the embryos or not is a separate question. However, the parents are at a loss, regardless of what the crime is labeled as, and should have a right to seek compensation.