Alabama Supreme Court allows couple to proceed with wrongful death lawsuit over destroyed frozen embryos

The Alabama Supreme Court Recognizes Frozen ⁤Embryos ⁢as Unborn Children

In ⁤a groundbreaking ruling,⁢ the ​Alabama‌ Supreme Court has declared that ‌frozen embryos should‌ be​ acknowledged and safeguarded⁣ as unborn children. This decision comes as several couples file a lawsuit‌ against‍ a fertility clinic‍ for the ​destruction of their frozen embryos.

The court, in an⁤ 8-1‍ ruling, stated that the state’s Wrongful Death of a ‍Minor Act applies to frozen embryos, as the law protects all children regardless of their location. The ⁣justices based their decision on a⁣ clause⁣ in Alabama’s Constitution that upholds the sanctity⁢ of⁤ unborn life.

“Here, ⁣the text of the⁤ Wrongful Death of ​a Minor Act is⁣ sweeping and⁣ unqualified. It applies to all children, born ⁣and unborn, without limitation,” wrote Justice Jay Mitchell in the majority decision. “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. That ⁣is especially true where,⁢ as here, ​the⁢ People of this State have⁢ adopted a⁣ Constitutional ⁢amendment⁤ directly aimed at stopping​ courts ⁣from excluding ‘unborn ⁢life’ from legal⁤ protection.”

The ruling ‍came after three couples sued the Center for Reproductive ⁤Medicine​ in Mobile when five frozen embryos were accidentally destroyed ⁣during their transfer⁣ within the clinic. ​The couples sought wrongful death claims for‌ the embryos’ loss.

After the lower court dismissed their claims, the couples appealed to the Supreme Court. With the new ruling, their⁣ request for punitive damages will now be reconsidered by the Mobile Circuit Court.

Justice Greg Cook dissented from the majority ⁣decision, expressing ‌concerns that it could restrict in vitro fertilization (IVF) in Alabama.

“No court — anywhere in ⁣the⁣ country — ⁤has reached the conclusion‍ the main opinion reaches. And, the main opinion’s⁤ holding almost certainly ends the creation of ​frozen embryos through in vitro⁢ fertilization (‘IVF’) in Alabama,” he said.

In ⁤his concurrence with the majority, Chief‍ Justice Tom Parker ‌drew upon​ the works of historic thinkers such as William Blackstone, Thomas‌ Aquinas, ‍John Calvin, and Petrus Van Mastricht to support his understanding of Alabama’s constitutional provision. He emphasized that⁣ all branches of government should ​protect the sanctity⁤ of life.

“All three ‍branches of⁣ government are subject to a constitutional mandate​ to treat ​each unborn human life with reverence. Carving out an exception for the people​ in this case, small as they were,‌ would ⁤be‌ unacceptable to the People of this State, ⁤who have⁤ required us to ​treat ‍every human being in⁣ accordance with the fear‍ of ⁢a‌ holy‌ God ‌who ⁢made them ‍in His image,” Parker wrote.

Parker’s‍ concurrence also ​referenced biblical books such as Genesis, Exodus,⁣ and Jeremiah to‌ further support his argument.

The court’s decision has been‌ applauded by pro-life advocates⁣ who⁤ have ⁣long advocated for personhood recognition from the moment of conception.

“This⁤ decision made by the‍ Alabama Supreme⁣ Court affirms the scientific reality ​that a new human ‌life begins at ‍the moment of ‍fertilization. Each person, from the tiniest embryo‍ to an elder‌ nearing the end ⁢of his life, has incalculable‌ value⁣ that​ deserves and ‍is guaranteed legal protection,” ‌said Lila Rose, President of Live Action.

Get ‍the DailyWire+ App⁤ for ⁢More News

CLICK HERE TO GET THE‌ DAILYWIRE+ APP

What are the ⁣potential consequences of affording frozen⁢ embryos the same ​legal status as living children?

Ion that a frozen embryo should be afforded the same legal status as a living, breathing child,” Justice Cook said in his dissenting opinion. “This‌ ruling has the potential to create chaos in the field ‌of reproductive medicine, as it may​ deter couples from seeking fertility treatments in ​Alabama out of‌ fear of legal repercussions.”

The landmark ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court has ignited a larger debate about the legal status of frozen embryos. While some argue that these embryos deserve ⁣the same protections as unborn children, others assert that they should be treated as property, subject to the decisions‍ of ⁣the individuals who created them.

The decision will have significant implications not only for reproductive‌ medicine but also for ⁤family law and the ⁣legal rights of frozen embryos. It may set a precedent for future cases in Alabama and possibly even influence decisions in other states.

Advocates for the recognition of frozen embryos as unborn children see this ruling⁤ as a victory‌ for the⁣ protection of ​life at all stages. They believe that‌ these embryos ‌should be afforded the same legal rights and protections ‌as‍ any other child, regardless⁤ of their current state of development ⁣or⁤ physical location.

However, critics argue that this ruling could have unintended consequences and lead to the restriction of reproductive rights. They worry that it may hinder individuals and couples⁤ from pursuing fertility treatments and make⁣ it more difficult for them to make decisions‍ about their reproductive future.

The Alabama Supreme⁤ Court’s ‍recognition ⁢of frozen embryos as unborn children is undoubtedly a contentious issue,⁢ with valid arguments on both sides. ​As this ruling continues⁣ to shape the legal landscape, it is clear that the debate surrounding the rights and legal status of frozen embryos is far from over.