Alabama Supreme Court Rules Frozen Embryos as Children under State Law
In a groundbreaking decision, the Alabama Supreme Court has declared that frozen embryos should be recognized as children under state law. The ruling, delivered in a pair of wrongful death cases, has raised concerns among critics who believe that it may have far-reaching implications for fertility treatments. The justices referenced language from the Alabama Constitution, which is regarded as anti-abortion, to justify their decision.
Protecting the Rights of Unborn Children
Justice Jay Mitchell, in the court’s majority ruling, emphasized that the legal protection for unborn children extends to all stages of development and physical locations. Backing this notion, Mitchell explained that previous rulings had already deemed fetuses within a pregnant woman’s womb as covered under Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. However, the latest ruling extends the Act’s coverage to include embryos located outside the womb.
Consequences for Fertility Treatments
The Alabama Supreme Court’s decision has sparked concerns within the medical community about its potential impact on fertility treatments. Previously, frozen embryos were considered as property by the courts. However, this ruling now recognizes them as individuals with legal rights. The CEO of RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, Barbara Collura, expresses anxiety regarding the practice of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and the implications for individuals who require fertility treatments. The decision raises crucial questions about the freezing, donation, and disposal of embryos.
The Case and its Implications
The wrongful death cases in Alabama involved three couples whose frozen embryos were destroyed in an accident at a fertility clinic. These couples had undergone IVF treatments that resulted in successful births. To preserve their remaining embryos, they chose to store them at a storage facility within a medical center. However, in 2020, a patient gained unauthorized access to the area, leading to the destruction of several embryos. As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the couples are now able to proceed with their wrongful death lawsuits.
Embracing the Ruling
Anti-abortion campaigners celebrated the decision, asserting that it recognizes the inherent value of every human life. Lila Rose, president and founder of Live Action, applauded the Court’s verdict, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the legal protection of all human beings.
Dissenting Opinion and Potential Ramifications
While the decision received majority support from the all-Republican court, Justice Greg Cook voiced strong dissent. Cook argued that the 1872 law, which the decision was based on, did not originally encompass frozen embryos, and its interpretation signified a stretching of its original intent. Furthermore, Cook highlighted that no court in the country has reached a similar conclusion to this ruling. Consequently, concerns have been raised that this decision might effectively halt the creation of frozen embryos through IVF in Alabama.
Anti-Abortion Language in the Alabama Constitution
The Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling relied on the anti-abortion language that was added to the Alabama Constitution in 2018. This language ensured the protection of the rights of the unborn child within the state. While some argued that this change in the Constitution would have limited consequences, it has now significantly impacted the legal environment, particularly after certain states gained increased control over abortion access in 2022.
Perspective from the White House
The Alabama Supreme Court’s decision has been attributed to the ripples created by the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre commented that the decision was a result of Republican officials limiting women’s access to reproductive and emergency care. The White House stressed their commitment to protect access to reproductive health care and pleaded with Congress to reinstate the safeguards provided by Roe v. Wade.
