No more IVF in Alabama?
-
Because of anti-abortion legislation and the state Supreme Court's interpretation of it, in-vitro fertilization (IVF) may no longer be accessible in Alabama:
In a majority opinion, Justice Jay Mitchell wrote that there was no exception for frozen embryos under an 1872 law allowing civil lawsuits for the wrongful death of children, or under a 2018 state constitutional amendment that required the state to “ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child.”
...
The decision could leave fertility clinics vulnerable to lawsuits over frozen embryos, and could hamper access to fertility treatments.Alabama Supreme Court ruling:
https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/343d203a-b13d-463a-8176-c46e3ae4f695/docketentrydocuments/e3d95592-3cbe-4384-afa6-063d4595aa1d -
I can't believe an 1872 law didn't take into account technology that was invented 100 years later!
@89th said in No more IVF in Alabama?:
I can't believe an 1872 law didn't take into account technology that was invented 100 years later!
You phrased it better than I would have.
You're right.
So, was the court wrong, considering what the law actually states?
-
What if you transfer an embryo to a person and she doesn’t get pregnant?
Now that the Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that one can be sued for "wrongful death" over the "death" of an embryo, presumably one can be similarly sued over the "death" of an embryo following an unsuccessful pregnancy after implantation. What a mess.
-
More fallouts:
And attorneys are warning that divorce settlements that call for frozen embryos to be destroyed may now be void.
On IVF:
"Under the current Alabama ruling, patients nor physicians nor IVF labs are going to be willing to have frozen embryos,” said Mamie McLean, a physician at one of the state’s largest fertility clinics, Alabama Fertility Specialists. “So if we are faced with two potential embryos that need to be transferred, modern practice would say transfer one and freeze one. But under this ruling, it may not be safe to freeze embryos so we will be forced to transfer two embryos … which increases the lifelong health risks to both mothers and children.”
“If someone has a recurrent miscarriage, it could be due to a genetic disorder,” Dunham said. “You end up creating multiple embryos, and they usually genetically test to see which one has the best chance of making it.
“But if you say these are children, and they can’t be destroyed — we are looking at maybe not being able to test it, because it could hurt the embryo,” she said. -
Nikki: "Frozen embryos are babies."
-
So they'd rather save embryos than have people raise actual children?
I'm not sure that's really being pro-life.
-
So they'd rather save embryos than have people raise actual children?
I'm not sure that's really being pro-life.
@Doctor-Phibes said in No more IVF in Alabama?:
So they'd rather save embryos than have people raise actual children?
Typical MAGA question.
-
@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.
