No more IVF in Alabama?
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in No more IVF in Alabama?:
So they'd rather save embryos than have people raise actual children?
Typical MAGA question.
@Copper said in No more IVF in Alabama?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in No more IVF in Alabama?:
So they'd rather save embryos than have people raise actual children?
Typical MAGA question.
Well, your guy has suggested that Alabama find an immediate solution that protects IVF.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68388232
I don't say this very often, but good for him.
I was only joking
-
I haven’t read the details but why are IVF treatments paused if they’re worried about the destruction of the embryo? IVF is literally using the embryo, not destroying it.
-
I haven’t read the details but why are IVF treatments paused if they’re worried about the destruction of the embryo? IVF is literally using the embryo, not destroying it.
@89th said in No more IVF in Alabama?:
I haven’t read the details but why are IVF treatments paused if they’re worried about the destruction of the embryo? IVF is literally using the embryo, not destroying it.
Because there is a significant chance of one egg failing to be fertilized or failing to be implanted, and the time, money, pain, and effort to even get to the point of taking the egg out of the woman is significant, standard practice is to attempt IVF with multiple eggs — meaning you will create multiple embryos in the process, but only implant a few, and freeze the ones not chosen for implantation (just in case you have to come back for a second try later). The frozen ones will eventually need to be disposed of, an act now deemed illegal in Alabama, and that’s why IVF clinics chose to pause their practice.
-
@Copper said in No more IVF in Alabama?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in No more IVF in Alabama?:
So they'd rather save embryos than have people raise actual children?
Typical MAGA question.
Well, your guy has suggested that Alabama find an immediate solution that protects IVF.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68388232
I don't say this very often, but good for him.
@Doctor-Phibes said in No more IVF in Alabama?:
@Copper said in No more IVF in Alabama?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in No more IVF in Alabama?:
So they'd rather save embryos than have people raise actual children?
Typical MAGA question.
Well, your guy has suggested that Alabama find an immediate solution that protects IVF.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68388232
I don't say this very often, but good for him.
Yes, give credit where credit is due; Trump is quite right on this.
-
Not just Trump, many Senate Republicans are also rushing to express support for IVF.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/23/ivf-restrictions-republicans-election/
Even the NRSC tells Senate candidates to support IVF.
“When responding to the Alabama Supreme Court ruling, it is imperative that our candidates align with the public’s overwhelming support for IVF and fertility treatments,” NRSC Executive Director Jason Thielman wrote in a memo to “Senate Candidates” dated Friday ...
-
I haven't taken a deep dive into this, but my superficial impression is that the court simply interpreted existing law. The court's job is not to approve or disapprove of the law - that's a legislative job. They said, "This is what it says." The implication being "Deal with it."
Apparently, the blowback has been so powerful, that sane minds are dealing with it.
Good for them.
-
Just came across the National Review article:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/02/what-the-alabama-ivf-ruling-was-actually-about/
-
I haven’t read the details but why are IVF treatments paused if they’re worried about the destruction of the embryo? IVF is literally using the embryo, not destroying it.
@89th said in No more IVF in Alabama?:
IVF is literally using the embryo, not destroying it.
They destroy a lot of embryos.
I spent enough funding IVF in it's early stages, 35+ years ago, that sometimes I think my name should have been over the door.
Stopping IVF to protect embryos is consistent with the end of Roe. Unexpected, maybe, but consistent.
-
I should clarify, I meant why not proceed with IVF transfers with existing embryos? But I get why practices are pausing until there is legal clarity. My wife and I went through many many many rounds of IVF btw, so I’m familiar with the process. It’s grueling.
-
It's not just the left who have people so blinded by virtue that they can't see what's right
I was only joking
-
It's not just the left who have people so blinded by virtue that they can't see what's right
@Doctor-Phibes said in No more IVF in Alabama?:
It's not just the left who have people so blinded by virtue that they can't see what's right
Well put.
-
It's not just the left who have people so blinded by virtue that they can't see what's right
@Doctor-Phibes said in No more IVF in Alabama?:
they can't see what's right
Did you know that people on one side of the abortion debate don't think people on the other side are right?
So, using the phrase "what's right" might be considered ambiguous.
-
The background of the case:
NRO's interpretation:
Last, if you spent any time this week casually following the Alabama IVF case, where a court ruled that frozen embryos are children under state law, you’ll probably be shocked to learn the insane details of what prompted such an opinion. The case heard by the judge involved an IVF-capable facility that failed to protect human embryos from a rogue patient who wandered into the room, accessed the freezer, and then accidentally dropped the embryos on the ground, killing them all. The case sought to answer the question: If an organization’s negligence allows for a random actor to kill human embryos, do the parents of said embryos have standing to sue the organization?
At CNN, a morning anchor alleged that a doctor had accidentally dropped a dish.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/02/25/cancer-ivf-alabama-embryos/
Cancer patients getting worried as well ... since cancer and some of its treatments may adversely impact fertility, some cancer patients turn to freezing their embryos before their cancer gets worse or before they undergo certain aggressive treatments as a way to preserve the option to reproduce later. This may not be a viable option in Alabama anymore due to legal risks.
-
No idea how a patient could access frozen embryos. In my experience they are very well protected, both in terms of access (not just dropping, but mixing up parent affiliations) as well as redundant systems/power to make sure they don't thaw if the power goes out.
-
Maybe Alabamans can drop unwanted frozen embryos at fire stations without legal repercussions …
Like many other states, Alabama has a law that allow infants to be surrendered at fire stations without being charged of abandonment. As a legal theory, maybe unwanted frozen embryos can be similarly surrendered?
-
Attorney General Steve Marshall issued a statement today regarding the detonation of an explosive device located outside the Alabama Attorney General’s Office in Montgomery.
Attorney General Marshall stated, “In the early hours of Saturday, February 24, an explosive device was detonated outside of the Alabama Attorney General’s Office building in Montgomery. Thankfully, no staff or personnel were injured by the explosion. The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency will be leading the investigation, and we are urging anyone with information to contact them immediately.”
-
More from National Review. Copied and pasted because of paywall.
The Alabama IVF Decision and Dobbs
An immense amount of the coverage of the controversy suggests or explicitly says that the Supreme Court, by reversing Roe v. Wade, paved the way for the Alabama decision. The Biden campaign has said this by way of holding Donald Trump responsible for the Alabama decision: His appointees to the Supreme Court were instrumental to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe, and Dobbs created the opening for the Alabama court.
This is not true.
• The Supreme Court never read Roe to protect IVF from regulation or restriction (and never made other rulings to offer such protection). Carter Snead, a professor at Notre Dame Law School who specializes in bioethics, emails: “I am not aware of a single SCOTUS or US Court of Appeals precedent stating that states lack plenary authority to regulate IVF. That said, it is well known (and a source of widespread criticism from both conservatives and progressives) that IVF as such is lacking in robust regulation and government oversight, including in the name of consumer/patient protection.”
• State and federal laws and court decisions recognizing human embryos and human fetuses as persons for some legal purposes preceded Dobbs, and courts did not strike them down as inconsistent with Roe. So, for example, the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act has for two decades recognized that federal crimes against women in which an unborn child is injured — no matter what that child’s stage of development — have two victims. (I made this point earlier in the thread - GK)
• Louisiana, decades before Dobbs, outlawed the intentional destruction, sale, or use for research of IVF embryos and declared them to be “juridical persons.” (IVF is still practiced in Louisiana.)
• The Alabama decision itself says, and the dissent agrees, that the state’s wrongful-death law covered unborn children in the womb before Dobbs.
• The majority opinion mentions Dobbs once in its text and twice in footnotes, on no occasion suggesting that its ruling turned on its having become law. (It cites it for backup on points about the historical status accorded to unborn children in law.) The court did not need Dobbs to issue its ruling.
My point in writing this item is not to protect Trump or Dobbs from association with an unpopular decision (albeit a decision I think was legally correct and that has been widely misunderstood). It’s just to note that a lot of the journalistic treatment of this major story is inaccurate, and someone ought to put it into the public record.
P.S. After I wrote this item, I saw that Ed Whelan was on the case a little before me. Given how much mistaken coverage there is, though, I don’t think it will hurt to have two correctives.
-
Maybe Alabamans can drop unwanted frozen embryos at fire stations without legal repercussions …
Like many other states, Alabama has a law that allow infants to be surrendered at fire stations without being charged of abandonment. As a legal theory, maybe unwanted frozen embryos can be similarly surrendered?
@Axtremus said in No more IVF in Alabama?:
Maybe Alabamans can drop unwanted frozen embryos at fire stations without legal repercussions …
Like many other states, Alabama has a law that allow infants to be surrendered at fire stations without being charged of abandonment. As a legal theory, maybe unwanted frozen embryos can be similarly surrendered?
We've long had a safe haven law.
I suppose you live where they can legally throw babies in the dumpsters?
