The daily wire

Alabama Supreme Court allows couples to proceed with wrongful death lawsuit regarding destruction of frozen embryos

The Alabama ⁢Supreme‍ Court Recognizes Frozen Embryos as Unborn‍ Children

The Alabama Supreme Court made ‌a groundbreaking ⁤ruling last week, declaring that frozen embryos ⁢should be acknowledged ‌and protected ​as unborn children. This decision comes ‍as several couples are suing​ a fertility clinic over the accidental destruction of their frozen embryos.

In an 8-1 ruling, the court ⁢stated that the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor⁣ Act applies to frozen embryos, as the ‍law safeguards 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 of their frozen embryos ⁣were accidentally destroyed during a transfer. They filed a wrongful death⁣ lawsuit,⁢ and now, due to the Supreme Court’s decision, ‌their request for punitive damages will be reconsidered by⁢ the Mobile‍ Circuit Court.

However, Justice Greg Cook dissented from the majority decision, expressing concerns that it could hinder in vitro fertilization⁢ (IVF) in the state.

“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 like Genesis, Exodus,‌ and Jeremiah, highlighting ​the significance of unborn life.

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.

Click here to get the DailyWire+⁤ app.

What are the potential consequences ⁢of recognizing early-stage ‌embryos as “unborn children”⁤ from‍ a scientific and moral standpoint?

Should be in the business of recognizing that these early-stage embryos⁢ are ‘unborn children,’ as that is a scientific and⁣ moral question best left to the⁣ individuals involved,” Cook wrote in his dissent. He ‍also argued that the ruling could ​have unintended consequences, such as ⁢further restricting a woman’s right⁢ to choose and impacting the field of reproductive medicine.

The court’s decision has sparked a heated debate on the rights of frozen embryos and the implications for reproductive technology and women’s reproductive choices.⁤ Supporters of the ruling argue that it provides legal protection for the⁤ potential lives contained within frozen embryos and affirms the value of unborn ⁣life. ⁢They believe ‌that the court’s decision aligns with​ Alabama’s conservative stance on pro-life issues.

Opponents of the ruling argue that it undermines women’s reproductive autonomy and has the ⁣potential to limit access to reproductive technologies and choices. ⁣They highlight the importance of individual choice and the right⁢ to make decisions about one’s own⁤ body and​ reproductive future. ⁣They also express concern that the ruling opens the door to further restrictions on reproductive rights.

Experts predict that the Alabama ‍Supreme Court’s ruling may have far-reaching ‍consequences beyond⁢ this specific case. It could set a precedent for similar lawsuits involving the destruction of frozen ⁢embryos and potentially impact legislation surrounding reproductive‌ rights in the state. ⁣It may also influence the debate on ⁢the legal status of frozen embryos and⁤ their rights in other parts of the ⁣country.

As the legal battle continues, it remains ​to be ⁢seen how ‍this ruling will shape the landscape of reproductive rights‍ and⁢ the treatment of frozen embryos‌ in ‍Alabama. It is clear, however, that the court’s decision has ignited a passionate clash ⁣of opinions and opened up a broader discussion​ on the ethical and legal considerations surrounding unborn life and reproductive choices.



" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases

Related Articles

Sponsored Content
Back to top button
Available for Amazon Prime
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker