I just read that the Alabama legislature just passed and the governor signed a new law that legalizes IVF. How can such a law be worded? The problem with the recent Alabama supreme court decision was not that it outlawed IVF per se but that the standard procedure invariably involved destroying defective or unused embryos and the court ruled that they were people too under the Alabama constitution. Generally speaking a legislature cannot change a consitution. So what is this new law actually doing?
I was just going to ask the same question. Any state constitution lawyers out there?
I could be wrong because I only did a quick glance at the story but what I think they did was pass a law that provides immunity to IVF clinics.
This is entirely false of course.
I really dislike answers like this. Would it hurt to explain why it’s false?
I think the answer is that embryos (or blastocysts or whatever) were only determined to be people for the purpose of the wrongful death liability claim (in the main opinion – the concurring opinion obviously tried to broaden that). So, embryos are not people when it comes to other things, such as murder, child support, tax deductions, carpool lanes, etc.
Do I have that right?
Anyway, I believe this new law was silent on the personhood of embryos, but rather just shielded IVF clinics and other folks (doctors? Others? Not sure) from liability if embryos are destroyed by them. Some are criticizing it for going too far – if an IVF clinic actually does act negligently, the wronged parties may have no recourse (or, maybe they can have recourse up to the cost of the IVF, but no further?).
I think this is absolutely a “too little, too late” effort by the legislature though. Now you’re going to have several differening interpretrations all of which will have to be worked out in the courts, and if I was such a clinic, I wouldn’t want to be a test case. So if I had already suspended services, I wouldn’t be changing my mind over such a bandaid.
Alabama lawmakers passed legislation on Wednesday to shield in vitro fertilization providers from civil and criminal liability, capping off their scramble to allow the fertility treatment after a State Supreme Court ruling found that frozen embryos should be considered children.
Lawmakers and legal experts acknowledged that the law did not address existential questions raised by the court about the definition of personhood, leaving open the prospect of legal challenges in the future.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/06/us/politics/alabama-ivf-law.html
So the law “immunizes” IVF clinics “from civil and criminal liability …” What hasn’t changed is frozen embryos are still children as defined the state’s supreme court.
The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law, a decision critics said could have sweeping implications for fertility treatment in the state.
Source: Alabama frozen embryos ruling: What it means for fertility treatments | AP News
However, in reading the actual Court decision it is not just limited to frozen embryos:
The central question presented in these consolidated appeals, which involve the death of embryos kept in a cryogenic nursery, is whether the Act contains an unwritten exception to that rule for extrauterine children – that is, unborn children who are located outside of a biological uterus at the time they are killed. Under existing black-letter law, the answer to that question is no: the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to all unborn children, regardless of their location.
(Bolding mine.)
I don’t know. I spent a fair amount of effort in the other thread (which you participated in) explaining the content, with no real success. And the premise of the OP is even more ignorant. But ok:
Everything after “the court ruled” is wrong. The decision didn’t involve the Alabama constitution at all (which I guess answers the OP’s question). And it didn’t hold that embryos are “people too.” They didn’t address whether embryos (or fetuses, or for that matter post-birth children) are “people” in any sense. Rather they interpreted the term “child” in a particular statute.
The Alabama statute provides a cause of action for parents to sue if their “child” is killed through negligence or wrongful act. Over a period of several decades, the Alabama Supreme Court has interpreted “child” (in that statute) to include certain “unborn” children, then all unborn children, then all unborn children to include fertilized embryos.
The new law (on my quick read) only says that you can’t bring an action under the above statute against a person engaged in IVF. So, for that matter, it doesn’t really nullify anything about the earlier ruling. The parents’ ability to sue is simply limited as to certain defendants.
Edit: I think I’m wrong and the new law is broader than that. You probably can’t bring any claim against an IVF provider for destruction of embryos under any theory – civil or criminal.
Thanks for the more comprehensive analysis! Not everyone is on every thread, and I tried to get it right from what I learned from your posts in the other one.
I just think it would be more helpful to say something like, “this is incorrect. I’ve explained why in the other relevant thread - here’s a link to that explanation.”
This is correct of course.
I just get frustrated sometimes.
Moderating:
This response is both rude and unhelpful. And while i read your detailed description in the other thread, and i understand why you are annoyed to repeat yourself, i don’t recall the op participating there. In general, you can’t assume that anyone in one thread has read another thread.
I definitely understand, and I appreciate your legal explanations in that and other threads!
Are we sure about that? I thought the ruling was that they were considered people if destroyed through negligence, like if you hit a woman and cause her to miscarry. I don’t think that is quite the same as “all embryos in IVF tubes are people”. For example, I don’t see any Frozen Embryo advocates pushing probate courts to declare them heirs.
Unsuprisingly, Legal Eagle has done a video on the initial ruling. And by my understanding, the current ruling is pretty narrow, but the Supreme court reached pretty far to make it happen against normal standards. And that those same courts have been very willing to retroactively apply new, hyper wide definitions backwards as well.
And the extreme language used by the Supreme court justice involving God and God’s laws (to me) strike me as incredibly unsypmathetic to expecting a narrow legalistic interpretation of embryonic child to just this one case even if the legislature is backpedaling as it is finding getting what you want (an end to abortion) isn’t exactly consequence-free.
Anyone who believes that the matter is as cut and dried as they think should read this item in today’s Times:
Here is a sample paragraph
" But the court’s interpretation of Alabama statute that frozen embryos should be considered children — coupled with an impassioned, theology-driven opinion from the chief justice — sowed fear about civil and criminal liability among doctors and clinics, and raised concern about the ramifications of other states taking a similar stance."
A companion article in the Times contains this paragraph:
" The new law shielding I.V.F. clinics may offer the couple some breathing room, but how much is not clear. The law does not address the underlying legal issue — that frozen embryos are children under state law — and its protections are so broad that it may not survive legal challenges."
Of course, there may be no one with standing to sue.
With the clear bias exhibited in the courts, do you really believe that a mere technicality like “standing” would be allowed to matter?
No problem. Just get a compliant court to appoint a guardian ad litem for all embryos in a facility’s care, and proceed to the punishment phase.