Does Alabama let people drop of children at sanctuary fire stations?
Checking - -
The judge is a conservative Christian that cites the Bible instead of the law. Alabama justice who ruled embryos are people says American law should be rooted in the Bible
During an online broadcast hosted by Tennessee evangelist Johnny Enlow(https://watch.restore7.tv/player/50200/612096) on Friday, Parker suggested America was founded explicitly as a Christian nation and discussed his embrace of the Seven Mountains Mandate — the belief that conservative Christians are meant to rule over seven key areas of American life, including media, business, education and government.
“God created government, and the fact that we have let it go into the possession of others, it’s heartbreaking,” Parker said in the interview"
Too bad it’s not heart-stopping.
It may be worth noting that Parker didn’t author the opinion. It may be all you need to know about is that the NBC journalist didn’t know that or didn’t care.
Yeah, he wrote a concurring opinion, that was quoted in the article the OP linked to, not the majority opinion.
There’s probably someone right now figuring out a plan to open an orphanage and sell adopt the embryos out.
Do they have freezers for the embryos?
Implant them in the judge who made the decision. Sure he will need to be castrated first, and it might kill him, but that’s a price I am willing to pay.
It seems to me that this ruling, dealing with a wrongful death statute, is not so broad as some are suggesting.
But first, a history lesson.
At common law, an action could not survive the death of the injured party. Nor could a victim’s estate recover for the death. This meant that, at common law, a man who stubbed his toe on a negligently installed floorboard could have an action for damages (unless of course he died for any reason before a final judgment was rendered), but the estate of a man who was killed by an anvil dropped on his head for comedic effect had no recourse (at least not for damages—obviously the state might bring criminal charges, but then what jury would convict someone who could concoct such a hilarious gag?).
This led, beginning in England in the mid-19th century but quickly expanding to other common law jurisdictions, including all over the US, to the adoption (by legislatures) of wrongful death statutes that created a statutory right to bring an action for wrongful death. The related concept of a “survival action” was also developed in statutes around this time, but I digress.
However, such statutes nevertheless arose within the common law tradition, and as such certain essential terms were often left undefined, and instead had whatever meaning they might have had under common law, until the legislature might say otherwise in a later amendment to the statute.
What this meant was that, because common law generally followed the “born alive” principle for establishing legal personhood (a newborn had to take at least one breath out of its mother’s womb to be considered a legal person), if a man beat a woman so severely as to cause a miscarriage but the woman survived, the only criminal charge available was for the assault on the woman, and the woman could likewise not bring a wrongful death action for the loss of a viable pregnancy. Because, you know, a fetus is not a person at common law. (ETA: It also meant that a pregnant woman, defending herself from a brutal but almost certainly not likely to be fatal beating, might not be privileged to use lethal force to defend her pregnancy—because whose life is at risk if not hers, considering the fetus isn’t a life, right?)
This in turn led to, in the latter half of the 20th century, a number of states (possibly even most?) either (a) passing new laws that mirrored the old laws for criminal homicide and civil wrongful death that uniquely covered fetuses and such or (b) simply amending the definition of “person” for existing laws for criminal homicide and wrongful death to cover fetuses and the like, with various caveats (maybe) to make clear that, for example, it would only apply if the death was caused by a third party.
Anyway, that gets us to here: if you live in a state that has a law saying that a surviving parent can bring an action for the wrongful loss of a viable fetus or embryo even, and that is literally all the law says and there is no specific carve out for a medical setting, then… well, even setting aside the strong undercurrent of Christian nationalism in the concurrence, it seems there’s a viable argument that such law must also extend to frozen embryos in a lab setting.
The question now is, can IVF facilities in such states contract out of liability for wrongful death going forward, or would any such provision be void on public policy grounds?
Too late for an ETA, but I do want to add this clarification, after reading the part of the majority opinion dealing with the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. Unless I missed it, Alabama did in fact pass the law in the mid-to-late 19th century (around the time wrongful death acts started appearing on scene elsewhere), but there doesn’t appear to be a corresponding (later) act extending it to fetuses or viable embryos. Rather, they do seem to have decided that at common law, within Alabama, “child” for purposes of the Act includes fetuses and the like in general.
Which is… concerning (but consistent with the state’s broader context of anti-abortion legislation, which they reference extensively). I guess the argument goes, you don’t need a separate statute saying “wrongful death and homicide laws extend to fetuses and embryos” if you are far enough along on the anti-abortion train.
ETA: And what I closed out with above, about whether IVF facilities can contract out of liability, seems like it is still open for consideration (at least tangentially). From the majority opinion:
C. Remaining Issues
During oral argument in these cases, the defendants suggested that the plaintiffs may be either contractually or equitably barred from pursuing wrongful-death claims. In particular, the defendants pointed out that all the plaintiffs signed contracts with the Center in which their embryonic children were, in many respects, treated as nonhuman property: the Fondes elected in their contract to automatically “destroy” any embryos that had remained frozen longer than five years; the LePages chose to donate similar embryos to medical researchers whose projects would “result in the destruction of the embryos”; and the Aysennes agreed to allow any “abnormal embryos” created through IVF to be experimented on for “research” purposes and then “discarded.” The defendants contended at oral argument that these provisions are fundamentally incompatible with the plaintiffs’ wrongful-death claims.
If the defendants are correct on that point, then they may be able to invoke waiver, estoppel, or similar affirmative defenses. But those defenses have not been briefed and were not considered by the trial court, so we will not attempt to resolve them here. … The trial court remains free to consider these and any other outstanding issues on remand.
IVF costs vary a lot, because insurance often covers sone of it, or at least gets you a negotiated rate on the drugs.
For many couples, the cost of IVF is not much more than the cost of a year of infant daycare, and far cheaper than the cost of a mom forgoing a salary for a year.
That doesnt make it cheap, by any means, but generally speaking, the IVF year is cheaper than the following “had a baby” year. Normal middle class people can and often do afford it.
The difference, of course, is you have to have the money all at once.
Except that IVF facilities are, in fact, stopping the service in Alabama.
At least pausing it while they figure out the legal ramifications
In simpler terms, the Alabama Supreme Court greased the slope and IVF providers have to figure out what, if any, traction they now have or if it is even worth making that determination rather than just leaving.
If you’re prohibited from destroying embryos because they’re people (which is what they determined, and why the guy who destroyed them got into trouble), I don’t see how you can have IVF anymore.
Maybe someone will create some trust fund that will allow people to donate unused embryos and keep them frozen for eternity, forever torturing those souls who will never experience life and never experience the glorious Christian afterlife.
Playing Devil’s Advocate:
If you injure a pregnant woman and she miscarries isn’t that a crime?
I’m sure it depends on the state. Injuring anyone is a crime, and some states may add to the severity if the person you injure is pregnant and miscarries. But it could be a crime because causing an unwanted miscarriage is a crime, not because the fetus is a person, right? That also probably depends on the state.
In any case, embryos aren’t fetuses anyway.
It’s a crime for the same reason that a forced abortion is a crime. It’s a battery on the woman, not on the fetus.
Seems there is more to it.
If I beat a woman is that the same thing as me beating a pregnant woman and she miscarries?
I’m not a fan of this decision but I am searching for the consistency here.
I was referring for how this definition of children might not apply so broadly elsewhere in law. However, as I clarify in my second post:
-
I might have to walk that back, because although they insist they’re only interpreting the meaning of child under the WDMA, the route they use to get there seems like it could be used to arrive at the same definition in other statutes.
-
It may yet turn out that contractual provisions prevent the lawsuit from going forward—but I’m willing to be a pessimist for now (that is, as much as I think they should find a way to save IVF, I’m not confident they will).
I regret my first post being somewhat half-baked.
Sure, but, based on what ASL said,that’s because the law is now unclear. They are ideally pausing until they can get clarification that they can contract out their duty to embryos.
I do see a way it is possible, since they are only children per purpose of the statute. So at minimum, it would seem that they could pass another statute specifically for IVF. Whether they will with all this culture war baggage remains to be seen l.