IVF for me, not for thee.
I haven’t seen anyone mention the fact that he kept saying over and over “we need more kids” (which made no sense in context). Who is “we” and why do they need more kids? Did he get Great Replacement theory mixed in there somehow? He is certainly a proponent. He was probably surprised to learn that stopping IVF would hurt that effort. Which just shows, again, what a complete moron he is.
I suppose that’s how discussions about anything abortion-adjacent must go. People make demonstrably false claims about a law or an opinion. And, if called on it, announce that the facts of this law or opinion don’t really matter because they know the real agenda of the enemy. Which isn’t very interesting, but would be more defensible if it didn’t begin with the falsehoods.
“Personal representative” is typically an estate law term for the executor or the administrator of the estate. It is appointed by the probate court to administer the estate of the deceased.
Parents typically execute liability waivers that purport to bind their minor children as well as themselves. That’s a complicated area of the law. But, if enforceable, that would apply against deceased child’s estate as well (as it would if the child himself tried to bring the claim).
You mean like where Alabama has determined that “of course” the common meaning of “child” includes embryo (it’s in the dictionary!)?
The anti-abortion movement is built on falsehoods. It’s not unreasonable to expect them to continue to expand on that base of lies.
You haven’t made a strong case that it’s “demonstrably false”.
Three of the seven IVF clinics in Alabama have stopped treatments, because they are concerned about the legal liability. Some others have said they will stop discarding embryos, which leaves a pretty open question of how they actually plan to manage that, since there are a lot non-viable or otherwise damaged embryos that are ordinarily discarded by IVF clinics. (And which by-and-large are discarded by the womb, when they are formed inside a woman.)
A blastocyst has no estate. And I don’t believe anyone other than the egg and sperm donors – and not always those – is ordinarily considered to “represent” them. It’s entirely unclear to me also what is meant by the term in this sense. Does the court intend to appoint one for each blastocyst in the state? Each one that isn’t implanted? Each one that is destroyed? What court is to do the appointing? If not a court, then who?
The cite is Exodus, chapter 21, line 22:
If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.
Same quote, with broader context:
So the laws were fairly well delineated, and killing a fetus was not considered murder or even serious - it was worthy of a fine though payable to the husband if I understand the passage correctly.
It was treated as property damage.
Wrong thread.
I think the act of destroying an embryo is not malum in se. That’s the main difference. Witness the carve out in the criminal code, the routine killing of embryos, the natural mortality rate, and for many the lack of a strong religious view. I mean, Plan B says right on the label that part of the mechanism is preventing embryos from implanting (though I think this is now believed untrue). Which means they die, on purpose.
So in that respect, yeah, I don’t consider destroying an embryo analogous to killing of another class of patient (with the possible exception of pregnancies that endanger the mother’s life, parasitic twins, etc).
~Max
Sort of, but minors have all sorts of limitations on their legal personhood. They certainly aren’t property and they have rights, but their ability to enforce those rights on their own behalf or to enter into contracts isn’t the same as even a corporate person. Their legal existence is so different that I’m not sure it is useful to note that they are subsets of persons.
I’m not a lawyer, and have zero experience with children in the law, so take this opinion for what it’s worth.
While Republicans are scrambling to disavow this hot potato, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is trying to entirely dodge the issue.
“Brave Sir Robert bravely ran away…”
Gift article; all read for free.
I do want to thank @Falchion and others for explaining that this ruling is narrow and only applies to civil liability.
I don’t take a lot of comfort from that, because precedents matter, and it seems clear the court is eager to go further. And if i were practicing IVF in Alabama, i would be looking to move away asap, and probably also try to tie up my money in a trust. But it’s good to understand the actual extent of this ruling, and that’s not something that’s been super-clear in the news.
Their status as persons is the same as adults for purposes of murder laws. Which is the endgame here.
Translation: RFK Jr is waiting for his handlers to tell him what his strongly held lifelong opinion on this issue is, based on polling of brain-dead anti-science anti-vaxxers whose views are somehow now very important to him.
Surprising no one:
Only green burritos. Soylent green burritos.
- collect a large supply of IVF embryos.(some number slightly larger than the population of Alabama)
- store them somewhere with a ridiculous power bill.
(Make sure to get a nice kickback from that) - Choose a container that cannot be moved and is too large to isolate any embryo. (Think a large swimming pool)
- let your company storing the embryos go bankrupt.
- call 911 to keep the lights on in your freezers.
- Watch idiots backpaddle.
I’m guessing that a lot of Republicans and people who might not ordinarily follow politics are unhappy about this ruling. I think (and hope) it will blow a hole in their elections this year if Democrats hammer it.
"Margaret is praying that lawmakers find a solution.
“I’m not very outspoken, I keep myself to myself. But if any of my friends or family heard that I was sending emails to every single representative and senator, I think they would be shocked.”
She takes a breath.
“But this has got me fired up. It is all I can think about now.”
It’s really not been very much in the radar of the average “base” voter. That average base voter probably is still thinking in terms of artificial insemination.
Unlike abortion/pro-life where that voter has been for 5 decades virtually carpet-bombed with propaganda about precious life beginning at conception, in order to lead them to vote for a particular set of politicians.
Politicians who themselves largely are unaware of the science and not concerned with getting in the weeds of what are the consequences, but with enacting the platform that is already prefab for them from their Religious Right donors – for whom everything in reproductive health is just an excuse for aborting (because somehow 1.“Kill babies” 2. ??? 3. Profit) or even worse a way to enable women to have sex without risking their lives. So the legislators pass those prefab laws and constitutional mandates for the intent of having providers not even dare come close to a zygote, because they, the RW legislators, themselves had no idea what purpose anyone would have to be futzing around with embryos anyway, but they do know this will get them a big cheer at CPAC.