On Friday, February 16th, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision made by one of the state’s circuit courts (Mobile County Circuit Court), ruling that cryogenically preserved embryos are classified as “children.”
In 2022, three couples filed a lawsuit against the Center for Reproductive Medicine in Mobile, AL under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, suing on the grounds that the clinic’s negligence had “wrongfully” killed their child.
One of the fertility clinic’s patients had somehow gained access to the cryogenic storage room, and when the freezing temperature of the embryo tube burnt their hand, they dropped the embryos onto the floor, killing them. The couples claimed that since the fertility clinic had “allowed one of its patients to leave from his or her room in the Infirmary’s hospital area and access the cryogenic storage area,” they could sue for wrongful death.
The original decision made by the county circuit court had stated that cryopreserved embryos were not considered “people,” and thus the lawsuit was dismissed because the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act did not cover embryos outside the womb.
However, the Alabama Supreme Court disagreed with the ruling, overturning it 8-1 on Friday. Alabama Supreme Court Justice Jay Mitchell wrote in the Court’s decision that the Wrongful Death of A Minor Act “applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation. It is not the role of this Court to craft a new limitation based on our own view of what is or is not wise public policy.”
The Heflin-Torbert Judicial Building in Montgomery, home to the Alabama Supreme Court.
As we learned in class, Alabama’s Supreme Court decision is a clear example of judicial restraint, in which judges will limit the exercise of their discretion and keep to the language of the law as much as possible. The Court restricted its own power, refusing to add age limitations to the Act, prioritizing instead the original intent and wording of the law. Since the Act doesn’t specify that an embryo is not a minor or that embryos are not protected under the law, then the lawsuit is applicable, according to the Court.
The Court’s ruling mirrors the recent pro-life state policy changes after the overruling of Roe v. Wade, in which Alabama legislators immediately banned abortions except in cases where the mother’s life is threatened or put at severe risk. Additionally, Alabama’s own state constitution explicitly outlines the rights of “unborn” children: “It is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life… Nothing in this constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion” (Alabama Constitution of 1901, Art. I, Sec. 36.06).
Many fertility clinics and medical institutions in Alabama warn against the consequences that the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision will have on medical procedures that involve embryos, such as in vitro fertilization, where egg cells are fertilized in a lab, and the embryo is placed into the mother’s womb. The procedure allows people with fertility issues or genetic disorders to have children and start their own family.
The Medical Association of the State of Alabama states that “the increased exposure to wrongful death liability would – at best – substantially increase the costs associated with IVF. More ominously, the increased risk of legal exposure might result in Alabama’s fertility clinics shutting down and fertility specialists moving to other states to practice fertility medicine.”
In Alabama, a deeply conservative state, most reproductive health clinics either shut down or have shifted away from abortions entirely after the fall of Roe v. Wade, instead focusing their sights on family planning and contraception. The personhood laws enacted in multiple states post-Roe v. Wade can also affect IVF procedures now that the rights of embryos are protected and the usage of embryos is becoming the subject of legal controversy.
112 million US residents face at least a 3.5-hour drive to the nearest clinic | CNN Analysis
Medical professionals fear that fertility clinics, similar to abortion clinics, may become scarce if IVF and other embryo-related procedures become legally restricted. In states like Alabama where the lack of reproductive health clinics is already at a crisis-level high, the effects of such Court decisions and pro-life legislation can have heavy consequences on the future availability of comprehensive reproductive healthcare.
Sources:
https://mynbc15.com/news/local/alabama-supreme-court-rules-in-vitro-embryos-are-children
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alabama-ruling-frozen-embryos-children_n_65d29a77e4b043f1c0aba2b9
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/05/29/alabama-abortion-clinic-problem-00096020
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-access-by-state/index.html
Emily Ren
10 comments:
This (seems) like a really odd Court ruling. If a couple wants to dispose of an embryo they do not plan to use, are they killing their child (and do they deserve to be prosecuted for it?) While the fertility clinic's negligence definitely qualifies as property damage (and if the couple is otherwise infertile, the damage is all the worse) calling embryos children seems like a step too far. Although this is a civil case, it does seem to carry big implications for criminal law in Alabama as well.
While I understand the frustration and heartache that many infertile couples traverse, suing a clinic for murdering their fertilized embryo is totally ridiculous. The failure of a cryogenically frozen embryo does not compare to the death of a child. Alabama may as well call cracking a chicken egg murdering a chicken. The county circuit got it right in ruling that cryogenic embryos aren’t considered “people,” however the Alabama supreme court appears incredibly conservative, and like Emily mentioned, exhibiting judicial restraint. Although the subject to me appears ridiculous, it is not surprising that a pro life state like Alabama would want to uphold their pro-life image, even if their argument falls flat. The synthetic fertility process is very complicated, and has a very low success rate to begin with, so clinics in Alabama may be blamed, sued, and shut down in the future for other fertility failures. It appears that both women's choices to abort a child in an abortion clinic, and to create one with a fertility clinic, are diminishing year by year.
I agree with Vishal and Ava that the implications of this ruling seem difficult to implement. This ruling implies that life begins at conception, and I can see how that could limit access to fertility clinics, as it increases their ability to be sued. Getting a lawsuit for Wrongful Death of a Minor is a serious charge, and if I were a physician, I would not want to risk that when working with embryos. I do understand the parents' frustration, however, that their embryo was killed due to the activities of an unsupervised patient.
Furthermore, 8-1 is very surprising to me, as it reveals how sure the judges were in the Alabama Supreme Court that this ruling was justified. I know they are conservative and likely exercising judicial restraint, but it's also concerning how the law, read plainly, could go this far. I personally hope that this ruling stays isolated in Alabama.
I think this court ruling was incredibly odd and misguided. I'm not sure the judges did not mean to affect IVF (or at least create a threat of change), but having the added liability, one equivalent to the death of a child, is kind of ridiculous. Especially since these are frozen embryos, which are fundamentally different from alive children: they are not sustainable life forms, certainly do not have any capacity to think (they are basically unconscious). I hope law enforcement and DA's use their discretion not to enforce this law, as punishing a doctor for an IVF related mistake as it was murder is hostile and illogical.
While I understand the disappointment of this one family, I don't think that this should be the reason that thousands of other families lose access to IVF. For many prospective parents, IVF might be one of the only options in consideration. If doctors are afraid to perform and reproductive health clinics are shut down, then I think it is unfair to families who rely on IVF. I do think that the particular clinic should be punished, but I don't think this punishment should be expanded to all clinics.
This ruling does not seem like judicial restraint to me. It seems really counterintuitive to assume that just because the law doesn't specify that "minors" doesn't include embryos, "minors" automatically does include embryos. The implementation of this ruling could also have extremely adverse effects on public health, even further limiting access to abortions in Alabama.
I empathize with the mourning couples who lost their embryos, but to sue the clinic for the "murder of their child" is, in my opinion, a little ridiculous. I think that the fact that a parent could access the cryogenic storage room proves that the regulations and measures in place aren't enough, and more need to be put in place. Nevertheless, a couple suffering this loss should not mean that a lot of others lose access to extremely necessary embryo-related procedures, such as IVF, which for some couples, are their only option. With the overturning of Roe v Wade in 2022, I can already see the U.S. heading in a more conservative direction regarding the issue of abortion. If doctors are going to start being criminally charged for performing IVFs and other related procedures, this problem is far worse than I thought.
I agree with Abby. I think this is a problem with the clinic itself, and can maybe be extended to the regulations around the storage of cryogenically preserved embryos, but calling this a murder seems entirely illogical. It feels ironic that the side claiming that cryogenic embryos are children, and describing themselves as "pro-life" and wanting to make sure every fetus is delivered is also the one threatening to take away many people's abilities to have their own children through IVF and cryogenic embryos. This truly highlights the hypocrisy of their argument and shows that they are not actually pro-life, just anti-reproductive rights. Even though the population of Alabama is also deeply conservative, I hope they realize that their politicians are spewing conflicting ideals and take a clear, pro-rights stance.
I agree with others that this seems like a very conservative view, and that it seems a little ridiculous to say "pro life" when they threaten to take away this opportunity to have children through an embryo and IVF. I think this is disappointing to take away that option from families who may need it. This affects public health as a whole if they are doing this for all clinics.
The goal of protecting unborn life is morally significant, but it's also crucial to consider the needs of people looking for help with fertility. The government has a key role in balancing between these two priorities. They can do this by creating clear guidelines and support for fertility clinics. This would help clinics work within the law, reduce risks, and keep fertility treatments like IVF available to those who need them. Additionally, the government could also invest in research and development to improve fertility technologies and procedures, making them safer and more accessible.
Post a Comment