(02-29-2024 02:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (02-29-2024 01:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: (02-29-2024 12:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Ham, you are off base. The liabilities for storage and maintenance will simply skyrocket in light of the decision.
So let me state my position as clearly and succinctly as possible.
If all embryos are equal, regardless of their location... which is what I understand the ALA court ruling to state..... then all embryos are equal, regardless of location.
The underlined is an incorrect assumption.
The Ala stance is: If a law is general with regard to children, then unborn children are within the bounds of the law question. That is not equivalent to your statement above. Further, there is zero restriction on if the legislature can delineate in vitro vs in utero outcomes. So no, the general proposition is not what you say above.
A better more precise statement would be 'for the purposes of the Alabama Wrongful Death of a Minor' statute, there is no legal difference between embryos, regardless of location'.
For the purposes of this conversation regarding IVF, What other scenario are 'unborn children' potentially in a variety of locations? What I mean by that is that there is no other way I can imagine to step through this scenario to cause the wrongful death of an unimplanted embryo (the IVF comparison) but through some contraception, which is legal. Once implanted, they are both in the same location. I suppose there are similarly some as of yet unimagined scenarios where that might not be the case... but I think the concept should still hold.
ETA... two embryos in the same location but in different 'conditions' can be treated unequally... this is part of the standard of care I mentioned.
I get your point and that my comment could be read to mean something more broad... but in context, I see it as a distinction without a practical difference.
Quote:And further, the provision does not imply that 'all embryos are equal', nor does the Ala court make that broad statement. Ala legislature can very much pass a law that says 'the destruction of a test tube embryo does not incur civil or tort liability'.
Sure... as they've already passed a law that says the destruction of an in utero embryo through IUD or other contraception does not incur civil or court liability. If it did, such devices and plan b would be illegal.
Passing a law with your language here would certainly be more clear, but I think the current statutes that allow IUDs or other INTENTIONAL acts (much less accidental ones) to terminate a living embryo in utero already clearly opens this door under the heading of 'equal protection'. To decide otherwise would be to make IVF embryos somehow 'more'.
I am not suggesting that IVF doctors in Alabama have zero to worry about... I am suggesting that I think their risks are being overblown by zealots on abortion issues... specifically because I cannot imagine how anyone could defend a position that discarding an unwanted embryo from IVF is a civil or criminal act, but discarding an unwanted embryo from 'plan B' is not. (said simply).
I understand no doctor wants to be the test case for that, hence the better fix is to pass a clear law... but there is nothing in the court decision that suggests that IVF cannot or should not be protected by the legislatures... which is essentially what the argument that these courts are 'out of touch' means.
Quote:My response to you was in course of several of your more general statements:
"Seems now they have to keep them, which to me doesn't sound like a heavy burden."
Yes, it is a heavy burden. Not necessarily for the 'storage costs', but the liability that that required storage mandates.
And:
"Why would they be any more expensive than for any other doctor."
[/quote]
The risks of typing quickly and/or not caring too much about the details for the purpose of my comment. Sorry about that.
What I meant by the above all stems from the position that this is merely the 'ugly period' I previously described between a court decision and the legislature catching up.
To the specific comments above...
Storing and maintaining embryos is already what they do... and as I suggested, I don't see how it could EVER be decided either by a legislature OR ultimately through the courts (though certainly some courts along the way get things wrong) that 'IV' embryos are more special than 'IU' embryos... as that violated 'equal protection'.... so I just can't imagine a scenario where liability insurance for one doc goes up more than for another... or that the cost of storage or the liability for 'failed' storage goes up.
Because of the 'equal' scenario I describe... The only scenario I ultimately see where one could be charged with a crime for termination of a frozen embryo would be a scenario where termination of an embryo in utero (IUDs or Plan B) were also a crime.... and in that case, all abortions and many contraceptive methods would be illegal... so it seems that 'the people' would be accepting an essential ban on ALL SORTS of abortions. Everything except those that actually prevent the creation of an embryo.
to wit....
Quote:Quote:OF COURSE if Alabama's goal is to ban abortion at any time in any location, it will make it unreasonably expensive for people to provide abortions. That's the point of a ban. I just don't think that is the goal, given that they allow IUDs and other means of intentionally terminating fertilized eggs.... aka an abortion. Whether or not current law reflects this is immaterial to me... because I am confident that it will be fixed such that it is consistent. Either they will expand protections to IVF docs to replicate as closely as possible the current situation for IU docs, OR they will go the other way and crack down on IU docs. If they don't, I suspect they will be sued for violating 'equal protection'... and not that I'd matter, but I'd vote in their favor.
I dont see the implication you draw here.
mostly answered above so I won't repeat... not trying to avoid it...
If it somehow WERE the will of the people to ban all abortions 'post conception' my contention is that this should by definition of the word 'all' include banning the destruction of IVF embryos... and that WOULD, by design put them out of business. I'm not suggesting they want this... I'm just suggesting that the argument that this opens the door to that is absolutely valid... but ONLY if the people vote for legislators who would pass such a law... reflecting the will of the people.
Quote:The only lesson I draw here is that the Ala folks tried to target abortion providers with the passage of the Constitutional provision, and the Ala Sup Court said here -- 'well if you really want to have that, you didnt think of the second order problems it occasioned. Care to come back with a fix?'
Absolutely... hence it will/should reflect the will of the people.
Remember that the context was that somehow appointing these conservative judges was making Republicans more 'out of touch'... and that is arguably the exact opposite of what has happened.
/
Alabama embryo ruling
