In our last episode, the Alabama Supreme Court effectively abolished in-vitro fertilization by ruling that frozen embryos are human beings, thus making the loss of any embryo a potential murder or manslaughter. Now, in our latest episode, the Alabama legislature is fighting back. Embryos are still human beings, as any God-fearing Alabamian knows, but new legislation says it doesn't matter:
No action, suit, or criminal prosecution shall be brought or maintained against any individual or entity providing goods or services related to in vitro fertilization.
This is really something. Doctors and organizations would be categorically immune to suits for anything related to IVF. They could accidentally cut off your balls or remove your uterus, and it would be tough luck.¹ Embezzlement? Why not! Credit card fraud? As long as you're overcharging for something related to IVF services, go right ahead.
IANAL. Maybe there's some principle of law I'm missing here. But that paragraph is basically the entirety of the legislation, and no exceptions are listed.
What's more, even as broad as this language is, it might not even work. The Supreme Court ruling relied on Alabama constitutional law and it's not clear if a mere statute could weaken rights derived from it.
These guys are nuts. And by "these guys" I mean pretty much the entire government of Alabama.
¹No, this couldn't actually happen. But you get the idea.
Has there been a time when the government of Alabama was not nuts?
Not since Reconstruction. Not before Reconstruction either.
I was just having a conversation about how with Republicans it's always worse than you think. So it is with this bill in Alabama.
If you read all the way to the end -- that is, to page 2 -- you'll find this:
Alabama wants to "save IVF" all the way until April 1, 2025. Then, when the election year is over, it's the end of IVF all over again.
Happy April Fool's!
Nice catch on the timing.
I had to check myself, because that seems so nuts. The end date is not only on the 2nd page, it's in the summary on the cover page!
It's one of two bills - the other one just says that people providing IVF are safe as long as they follow standard industry practices.
I checked some news reports. I couldn't find any that mentioned the time limit. Seems like that might be a relevant piece of information!
Not sure if the bill’s been amended since you linked to it, but after the excerpt you quoted it says “…except for an act or omission that is both intentional and not arising from or related to IVF services.” So it’s not quite as broad as you imply, though the “both” does seem to indicate that if an IVF clinic director committed, say, a strict-accountability offense that doesn’t have an intent requirement or a tort that just requires negligence, they’d be insulated from prosecution or liability.
That is exactly how I read it. I am genuinely curious how a court, even an Alabama court, would actually apply this.
But that exception means they can be held liable for actions related to IVF, so that would include normal embryonic destruction!
Which isn't this case, but why IVF companies have shuttered.
But what if an IVF doctor commits a liquor store robbery?
Republicans have no interest in governance. Dramatic performance definitely. Sweeping authoritarianism as a general principle, yes. Enshrining religion and various forms of bigotry in law, certainly! But adopting and executing laws that are measured and just and intended to benefit society, hahahahahano.
And so we see another example of We must do something …
…and, perhaps, an example of selective quoting…
Kevin, you seem surprised..
If only these guys could be transported to a country which enforces all of their wishes, so they could live in the world that they desire.
Spain, during the Inquisition, perhaps.
First - just what in the holy hell got into these pols? A 2 page (barely) Act? Really? In this day and age?
Second - why the civil protections? Are they trying to protect doctors and clinics from malpractice lawsuits?
Or am I reading the Act wrong?
They're trying to protect fertility doctors from wrongful death lawsuits and/or criminal prosecution in the case frozen embryos are ever lost or destroyed. But they were in a hurry, and/or don't really know what they're doing, so you get this silly language.
Elect clowns, expect a circus.
Alabama intellectuals no longer need to spend hours pondering the great question: which came first, the chicken or the egg? The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled chickens and eggs are the same thing; there is no difference between them.
To be fair, they ruled that chicken and fertilized eggs are the same thing. So if you go to a diner and order the fried chicken you get fried eggs with the little red dot on the yolk.
Divine gestation, like Jesus.
Way to keep the issue on the top of the news cycle, Alabama! Well done.
As written, only an act and omission that is BOTH intentional, and not not arising from or related to IVF services would still be actionable. So purposely scamming a client out of money could be actionable in court, while damaging a uterus during an IVF procedure (accidently or on purpose) would not be actionable in court.
These fucking moronic Christian Nationalists can't bring themselves to say that disposing of an embryo is not actionable in court because that would mean the same as saying disposing of a person is not actionable in court.
Isn't this basically how the gun industry gets out of wrongful death/product liability litigation arising from their stuff? As you say, as life is protected by the US Constitution (and likely the AL Constitution) not sure they can make murder (which is what you have if an embryo is a person) free from consequence.
"... not sure they can make murder (which is what you have if an embryo is a person) free from consequence. .."
Murder is an unlawful killing. Legal executions for example are not murder. So if you make abortion legal it is not murder whether or not you consider a fetus a person.
Kevin writes that “The Supreme Court ruling relied on Alabama constitutional law.” That’s a misreading of the ruling.
At the heart of the Court’s decision is its conclusion that the word “child” in Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act covers frozen embryos. The Court improbably claims that giving the word “child” in that statute its “natural, ordinary, commonly understood meaning,” a frozen embryo is a child. It then writes: “Even if the word ‘child’ were ambiguous, however, the Alabama Constitution would require courts to resolve the ambiguity in favor of protecting unborn life.”
That last quoted sentence is the only one I can see that remotely supports Kevin’s claim, and it doesn’t actually support it because the Court doesn’t concede the that word “child” is ambiguous. If the legislature wanted to, it could modify the provision in the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act to say it didn't cover frozen embryos.
The ruling is here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/21/us/alabama-supreme-court-embryo-ruling.html
That's an article, not the ruling, and unrelated to the new legislation.
Taken as a whole, they're saying that they want to protect IVF long enough for these services to leave the state, by April 1, 2025, don't you think?
And as written, it appears they intend to protect negligent acts related to IVF, but not intentional acts. So, if you accidentally destroy fertilized eggs, you're protected, but if you intentionally do so, you're not protected.
As for its mootness, their constitution states, "This state further acknowledges, declares, and affirms that it is the public policy of this state to ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child in all manners and measures lawful and appropriate."
Whether or not this provision is constitutional apparently rests on who gets to decide what is and isn't appropriate, the state's government or its court?
Does that get into transporting fetuses across the state border for destruction issues? Asking for a friend.
A literal interpretation? No. But again, it isn't clear who gets to decide what is and isn't appropriate manners and measures, and what those manners and measures are.
Exactly!
...also, it sounds like an IVF doctor could hold up a liquor store and hold up their W2 as defense.
The fascinating bit here is that now embryos now are both children and they are not children at the same time. If you can imagine a Venn diagram with the intersection of two sets: children AND NOT(children).
I apologize for bringing formal logic into a discussion about Alabama laws.