• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Frozen embryos are ‘children,’ Alabama Supreme Court rules in couples’ wrongful death suits

Safiel

Safiel

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 27, 2023
Messages
403
Reaction score
493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
www.al.com

Frozen embryos are ‘children,’ Alabama Supreme Court rules in couples’ wrongful death suits

The state's highest court reversed a judge's dismissal of the case involving embryos destroyed by a wandering Mobile hospital patient.
www.al.com www.al.com


Link to the full Opinion of the Court, concurring opinions and dissenting opinion.

The facts in a nutshell. Several couples had IVF embryos in cryo storage. A patient in the clinic/hospital somehow got in the storage room, actually grabbed the storage containers and then dropped them due to sustaining cryo burns, destroying the embryos in the process. The couples sued, primarily under the Wrong Death of a Minor Act, with an alternate pleading for negligence and wantonness.

I have read all 131 pages, including the Opinion of the Court and all concurrences and dissents.

I disagree with the Opinion of the Court, for the reasons given in Justice Cook's dissent.

After reading the final dissenting opinion by Justice Cook, I concur with it. It starts at page 75 of the previous link and goes to the end of the document, page 131.

Justice Cook would have held that Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act would NOT apply, since the common law does not envision cryogenically frozen embryos as persons, thus the Plaintiffs would have no cause of action under that act.

However, he would also reverse the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s negligence and wantonness claims and allow them to proceed to trial on those grounds.

Justice Cook’s approach would also avoid what will likely be the end of the IVF industry in Alabama, which will be a likely side effect of the majority opinion.

Justice Cook, as well as member’s of the majority opinion, have invited the Alabama Legislature to step in and clarify these laws and the Legislature should accept their invitation and do so. Particularly since the Alabama Supreme Court ruling puts Alabama out of step with literally every other State in the Union.

That all being said, I now address Chief Justice Parker's special concurrence, which runs from page 26 to page 48. You may notice that it reads more like a Sunday sermon and less like a legal opinion. Fortunately, no other Justice joined this special concurrence, as it would lead us squarely down the read to a theocracy. It breaks the cardinal rule of not engaging in constitutional interpretation if statutory interpretation is sufficient to handle the legal issue before you. It usurps the legislative role by declaring public policy. All in all, the special concurrence is an embarrassment, even by Alabama standards.
 
Safiel said:
www.al.com

Frozen embryos are ‘children,’ Alabama Supreme Court rules in couples’ wrongful death suits

The state's highest court reversed a judge's dismissal of the case involving embryos destroyed by a wandering Mobile hospital patient.
www.al.com www.al.com


Link to the full Opinion of the Court, concurring opinions and dissenting opinion.

The facts in a nutshell. Several couples had IVF embryos in cryo storage. A patient in the clinic/hospital somehow got in the storage room, actually grabbed the storage containers and then dropped them due to sustaining cryo burns, destroying the embryos in the process. The couples sued, primarily under the Wrong Death of a Minor Act, with an alternate pleading for negligence and wantonness.

I have read all 131 pages, including the Opinion of the Court and all concurrences and dissents.

I disagree with the Opinion of the Court, for the reasons given in Justice Cook's dissent.

After reading the final dissenting opinion by Justice Cook, I concur with it. It starts at page 75 of the previous link and goes to the end of the document, page 131.

Justice Cook would have held that Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act would NOT apply, since the common law does not envision cryogenically frozen embryos as persons, thus the Plaintiffs would have no cause of action under that act.

However, he would also reverse the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s negligence and wantonness claims and allow them to proceed to trial on those grounds.

Justice Cook’s approach would also avoid what will likely be the end of the IVF industry in Alabama, which will be a likely side effect of the majority opinion.

Justice Cook, as well as member’s of the majority opinion, have invited the Alabama Legislature to step in and clarify these laws and the Legislature should accept their invitation and do so. Particularly since the Alabama Supreme Court ruling puts Alabama out of step with literally every other State in the Union.

That all being said, I now address Chief Justice Parker's special concurrence, which runs from page 26 to page 48. You may notice that it reads more like a Sunday sermon and less like a legal opinion. Fortunately, no other Justice joined this special concurrence, as it would lead us squarely down the read to a theocracy. It breaks the cardinal rule of not engaging in constitutional interpretation if statutory interpretation is sufficient to handle the legal issue before you. It usurps the legislative role by declaring public policy. All in all, the special concurrence is an embarrassment, even by Alabama standards.
Click to expand...

Well there goes IVF. Good job, Alabama.
 
Holy mother of cheese balls - who the hell wrote that lawsuit that way?

Everything about it is just such a plea to emotions it makes my skin crawl.

“Cryogenic nursery”? (Just one of the terms making me silent rage currently)

Well….next up is the end of IVF in certain states.

Well done Alabama. In the race to stupid, you all are leading the charge.


(And as someone with frozen embryos - this situation SUCKS for those families and they are entitled to compensation for those damages at really high rates for negligence on the part of the clinic. But this was NOT the angle to take. Not at all)
 
Safiel said:
www.al.com

Frozen embryos are ‘children,’ Alabama Supreme Court rules in couples’ wrongful death suits

The state's highest court reversed a judge's dismissal of the case involving embryos destroyed by a wandering Mobile hospital patient.
www.al.com www.al.com


Link to the full Opinion of the Court, concurring opinions and dissenting opinion.

The facts in a nutshell. Several couples had IVF embryos in cryo storage. A patient in the clinic/hospital somehow got in the storage room, actually grabbed the storage containers and then dropped them due to sustaining cryo burns, destroying the embryos in the process. The couples sued, primarily under the Wrong Death of a Minor Act, with an alternate pleading for negligence and wantonness.

I have read all 131 pages, including the Opinion of the Court and all concurrences and dissents.

I disagree with the Opinion of the Court, for the reasons given in Justice Cook's dissent.

After reading the final dissenting opinion by Justice Cook, I concur with it. It starts at page 75 of the previous link and goes to the end of the document, page 131.

Justice Cook would have held that Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act would NOT apply, since the common law does not envision cryogenically frozen embryos as persons, thus the Plaintiffs would have no cause of action under that act.

However, he would also reverse the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s negligence and wantonness claims and allow them to proceed to trial on those grounds.

Justice Cook’s approach would also avoid what will likely be the end of the IVF industry in Alabama, which will be a likely side effect of the majority opinion.

Justice Cook, as well as member’s of the majority opinion, have invited the Alabama Legislature to step in and clarify these laws and the Legislature should accept their invitation and do so. Particularly since the Alabama Supreme Court ruling puts Alabama out of step with literally every other State in the Union.

That all being said, I now address Chief Justice Parker's special concurrence, which runs from page 26 to page 48. You may notice that it reads more like a Sunday sermon and less like a legal opinion. Fortunately, no other Justice joined this special concurrence, as it would lead us squarely down the read to a theocracy. It breaks the cardinal rule of not engaging in constitutional interpretation if statutory interpretation is sufficient to handle the legal issue before you. It usurps the legislative role by declaring public policy. All in all, the special concurrence is an embarrassment, even by Alabama standards.
Click to expand...

AL has been pushing the envelope on this, fetal rights, etc since Dobbs.
 
Actually reading more, this would end IVF in the US if it stands.

When you declare extrauterine embryos as “minor children” vs. property? You’ve just destroyed IVF and all the science that’s developing around it and because of it. Including stem cell research, medical progress that comes from that, etc.

“This is why we can’t have nice things”
 
Safiel said:
www.al.com

Frozen embryos are ‘children,’ Alabama Supreme Court rules in couples’ wrongful death suits

The state's highest court reversed a judge's dismissal of the case involving embryos destroyed by a wandering Mobile hospital patient.
www.al.com www.al.com


Link to the full Opinion of the Court, concurring opinions and dissenting opinion.

The facts in a nutshell. Several couples had IVF embryos in cryo storage. A patient in the clinic/hospital somehow got in the storage room, actually grabbed the storage containers and then dropped them due to sustaining cryo burns, destroying the embryos in the process. The couples sued, primarily under the Wrong Death of a Minor Act, with an alternate pleading for negligence and wantonness.

I have read all 131 pages, including the Opinion of the Court and all concurrences and dissents.

I disagree with the Opinion of the Court, for the reasons given in Justice Cook's dissent.

After reading the final dissenting opinion by Justice Cook, I concur with it. It starts at page 75 of the previous link and goes to the end of the document, page 131.

Justice Cook would have held that Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act would NOT apply, since the common law does not envision cryogenically frozen embryos as persons, thus the Plaintiffs would have no cause of action under that act.

However, he would also reverse the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s negligence and wantonness claims and allow them to proceed to trial on those grounds.

Justice Cook’s approach would also avoid what will likely be the end of the IVF industry in Alabama, which will be a likely side effect of the majority opinion.

Justice Cook, as well as member’s of the majority opinion, have invited the Alabama Legislature to step in and clarify these laws and the Legislature should accept their invitation and do so. Particularly since the Alabama Supreme Court ruling puts Alabama out of step with literally every other State in the Union.

That all being said, I now address Chief Justice Parker's special concurrence, which runs from page 26 to page 48. You may notice that it reads more like a Sunday sermon and less like a legal opinion. Fortunately, no other Justice joined this special concurrence, as it would lead us squarely down the read to a theocracy. It breaks the cardinal rule of not engaging in constitutional interpretation if statutory interpretation is sufficient to handle the legal issue before you. It usurps the legislative role by declaring public policy. All in all, the special concurrence is an embarrassment, even by Alabama standards.
Click to expand...
Serious blow to the abortionists. If this stands, abortion is murder.
 
BirdinHand said:
The has absolutely zero bearing on abortion because the lawsuit is specifically around extrauterine embryos.

If you read even one paragraph of the attachments that would have been plainly clear.
Click to expand...
How do you determine one unborn child has rights and others do not? No, if this stands it will work to the Supreme Court and then it's a new ball game.
 
Integrityrespec said:
How do you determine one unborn child has rights and others do not? No, if this stands it will work to the Supreme Court and then it's a new ball game.
Click to expand...
Under his eye, right?


(With the added benefit of decimating countless other scientific studies and progress. Yay team zealots!)
 
As this case was decided on State law alone, the United States Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. The Alabama Supreme Court is the final stop for this case.
 
Safiel said:
As this case was decided on State law alone, the United States Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. The Alabama Supreme Court is the final stop for this case.
Click to expand...
Yes and no.

Give them a minute, some idiot will run it at federal law somewhere.
 
Safiel said:
As this case was decided on State law alone, the United States Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. The Alabama Supreme Court is the final stop for this case.
Click to expand...

This can still be challenged in federal court.
 
CaughtInThe said:
is Alabama saying that life starts before conception?
Click to expand...
An embryo is a fertilized egg. Conception has occurred. Just waiting to be implanted in a suitable uterus.

So, with this ruling, what becomes of the embryos that are not implanted? When the parents die, who is on the hook for taking care of these 'unborn children' in perpetuity? Obviously, the state cannot allow these unborn children to be destroyed. Therefore, the cryogenics folks will have a claim against someone . . . the parent's estate? The state welfare departments? Who's gonna take care of the kids?
 
Safiel said:
As this case was decided on State law alone, the United States Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. The Alabama Supreme Court is the final stop for this case.
Click to expand...
This is a common misconception. State laws and state constitutions are subject to the U.S. Constitution as per Article VI, Paragraph 2, the supremacy clause.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
An embryo is a fertilized egg. Conception has occurred. Just waiting to be implanted in a suitable uterus.

So, with this ruling, what becomes of the embryos that are not implanted? When the parents die, who is on the hook for taking care of these 'unborn children' in perpetuity? Obviously, the state cannot allow these unborn children to be destroyed. Therefore, the cryogenics folks will have a claim against someone . . . the parent's estate? The state welfare departments? Who's gonna take care of the kids?
Click to expand...
I thought the eggs could be frozen prior to fertilization.
 
CaughtInThe said:
I thought the eggs could be frozen prior to fertilization.
Click to expand...
They can be, as can sperm, but the success rate for IVF is higher when fertilization takes place prior to cryogenic freezing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom