Alabama lawmakers are planning legislation to 'protect' IVF after state Supreme Court ruling, sources say. Here's the la

[limbicnuminousity]

Source: CNN

A bipartisan effort is underway in the Alabama House and Senate to draft “clarifying” legislation that would “protect” in vitro fertilization treatments following the court’s ruling, state legislative sources told CNN.

Alabama House Democrats introduced a bill Thursday that would establish fertilized human eggs stored outside of a uterus are not considered human beings under state law.

Republican state senators are soon expected to file similar legislation, one source said, but they were unsure of the exact timing.

The lawmakers’ efforts come as medical experts and critics fear the court’s decision – which can put those who discard unwanted embryos at risk of being held liable for wrongful death – could have a profound effect on fertility treatment operations in the state and devastating ramifications for people hoping to build their families through IVF.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/23/us/alabama-ivf-embryos-supreme-court-ruling-legislation/index.html

---

Much more at link.

[Freethinker65]

1. But a human fertilized egg stored inside a woman's uterus is considered human being? Nope.

[24601]

5. The relevant question isn't whether it's human, or citizen, but whether it's a person and that requires a live birth.

Although the Dobbs decision ruled that abortion isn't a federal issue, other federal issues remain. For example, a Social Security number will not be issued without a live birth. Federal tax deductions and credits require a live birth/person. Homicide laws in 38 states, including California, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, apply to a human fetus.

Federal law - 18 U.S. Code § 1841 (Protection of unborn children) allows separate prosecution for killing or attempted killing of a fetus, with an exception for an abortion performed with the mother's consent. Cornell Law School has a good link to this law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

[Freethinker65]

6. Understood, but a fertilized egg is not a fetus.

Alabama Republicans want to legislate a fertilized egg in a freezer is not a human thus is not protected? So if an IVF lab has an issue resulting in non-viability of a fertilized egg, it is not considered possible murder of a human. But the same Republicans argue if that a fertilized egg was in a female's uterus which resulted in non-viability, that can still be considered murder of a human life?

[ananda]

9. Great highlight of Republican insanity.

Exactly

[24601]

10. No argument from me that it's a fetus. Following the science, between conception and birth, humans have three stages of

prenatal development.

Germinal - conception through week 2
Embryonic - end of week 2 through week 8
Fetal - end of week 8 until birth

Regardless of the stage, it's human. We do not have the science for a human conception to produce even a chimp - the closest genetically similar species to us.

It's a separate issue to determine whether you have a person or when the statutes apply. These answers are determined by law, not by science. The federal law I cited earlier applies to any stage of prenatal development.

But from personal experience on when life really begins - it's when the last kid finally moves out and off the family payroll.

[getagrip_already]

2. How does a state law supercede a state supreme court decision?

Does it work differently at the state level?

I'd think an sc ruling would step on state law, before or after it was made?

[ificandream]

3. It's the same thing happening since the Dobbs decision.

Many states are codifying abortion since the Supreme Court left it to the states. Since this is a state Supreme Court decision, I would think the same thing holds true.

[getagrip_already]

4. But arent those states doing it with constitutional amendmenments?

Where necessary?

Sure, you can pass a law as long as your Supreme Court hasn't ruled against you, but if it has, you need a constitutional amendment.

In this case, they can't pass a law that goes against an existing sc opinion. The sc opinion takes precedence.

If your sc says you can't discriminate against blacks by denying them the vote, you can't deny them the vote by passing a law to do just that.

That's what I'm not getting.

[slightlv]

7. I believe we are so far down the rabbit hole

of a Constitutional Crisis as to be unrelievable. We have states making their own laws in defiance of Federal Law, where FedLaw obviously is superior. We have other states just saying "Screw You" to the Federal government. We even have counties within states making up their own laws, or positions on whether or not to enforce laws. And then you've got Florida and Texas.

We either have to admit we are no longer the United States of America, or we have to bring all these states back under the Federal Umbrella. I realize this is PNAC's wet dream, but it's a nightmare for everyday Americans. If you stop and think about it... how many rights and freedoms have you given up since *rump came down the escalator? How many of them are state-based restrictions vs Fed?

I still don't see how we get out of this mess without splitting the country in two parts, but that's just me... and even I acknowledge the massive problems inherent in that idea. Call it the Two State response for America. But if we can't get this 1/3 of the Republican party under control... and that includes putting Nazi's, Christian Nationalists, etc., on a terrorist list... then I see no other option. They're fighting for their GAWD... there is no compromise they will accept. It's against their religion.

I just see trying to walk all this back to the point we were when even Obama was in office becoming a pipe dream farther and farther into this distance.

[Novara]

8. The dog caught the car and it burst into flames.