I don't think that most legislators in Alabama (or the US) understand the sweep of the Alabama Supreme Court's interpretation of "personhood".
I forgot to point out the monumental hypocrisy contained in the actual Opinion - and it's breathtaking.
In footnote 10, the Court states "we do not see how any
hypothetical plaintiffs who attempt to sue over the consensual removal of an ectopic pregnancy could establish the core elements of a wrongful-death claim...."
Yet, they spent
several pages spinning out ludicrous scenarios (pp. 8-11) of "discrimination" against "extrauterine children" that are not
only hypothetical, but pure fantasy, starting with, "The defendants argue that this Court should recognize such an exception because, they say, an unborn child ceases to qualify as a "child or "person" if that child is not contained within a biological womb" and asserting, "one
latent implication of the defendants' position -- though
not one that the defendants seem to have anticipated -- is that, under the defendants' test, even a full-term infant or toddler conceived through IVF and gestated to term in an in vitro environment would not qualify as a "child" or "person," because such a child would both be (1) "unborn" (having never been delivered from a biological womb) and (2) not "in utero." ..."These are weighty concerns." (
Emphases mine).
Yes, they completely dismiss the problem of ectopic pregnancy, which is
real, and are overly concerned with test tube baby technology which doesn't even
exist, but might, possibly, at sometime in the future, come into being
.
I
also forgot to post the most disturbing quote related to my previous post: "Accordingly, any legislative (or executive) act that contravenes the sanctity of unborn life is potentially subject to a constitutional challenge under the Alabama Constitution." In other words, "we invite you to bring cases to strike down any other laws we might find offensive."