Chapter 1: Introduction to the Ruling

How much influence should divine beliefs have over fertility treatments in America? This topic is worth exploring, especially in light of a recent Alabama Supreme Court decision.

“Human life is a gift from God,” the ruling states, echoing a key tenet of English common law. This is just the beginning of some unsettling revelations.

The court ruling references the prophet Jeremiah, asserting that all unborn individuals in Alabama should be treated as persons. This is a quote that likely has Founding Father James Madison turning in his grave.

One might ponder: which deity is being referenced? Is it Jesus, Allah, Beelzebub, or perhaps Dionysus—who, if you think about it, could theoretically create test tube babies from wine?

Here’s a brief overview of the case:

The lawsuit, Burdick-Aysenne v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, involves a claim of wrongful death related to in vitro fertilization (IVF). It appears a patient inadvertently caused damage in a cryogenic facility, leading to the loss of embryos. This incident underscores a startling lack of awareness about IVF procedures, which require careful handling of liquid nitrogen.

Embryos are typically preserved in a freezer until they can be implanted. However, the Alabama Supreme Court has classified these frozen embryos as persons, citing the Constitution's invocation of “Almighty God.”

But what about the voices of the Founding Fathers? Why didn’t the court consider the First Amendment, which advocates for the separation of church and state?

The implications of this ruling are significant. Labeling embryos as persons will restrict couples from creating multiple embryos during the IVF process, a practice that currently allows for higher chances of success. This ruling may necessitate that couples only fertilize one egg at a time, likely increasing the overall costs associated with IVF.

Moreover, the ruling complicates preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), which can result in embryos failing genetic assessments. The potential for legal repercussions for failing to preserve embryos raises concerns about the future of reproductive medicine.

Having read the extensive 131-page ruling, I can confirm it might challenge even the most devoted believers. Strikingly, “God” appears 40 times, while “science” is mentioned just four. This ratio raises questions about the balance of faith and empirical evidence in a decision that should remain private between couples and their medical providers.

Looking at the justices involved, out of nine Alabama Supreme Court justices, only two are women. All nine hold Republican affiliations, adding another layer to the scrutiny of this ruling.

The court referred to the 1872 “Wrongful Death of a Minor Act,” declaring all unborn children as persons, regardless of their developmental stage. The emphasis on "location" is particularly telling, as these embryos are stored in a cryogenic facility rather than being inside a woman's body.

Opinions on when life begins vary widely. Conservatives often believe it starts at fertilization, while liberals argue it’s uncertain. Regardless, embryos remain dependent on a uterus for development.

Now, let’s consider the implications: if an embryo requires a uterus to grow, what happens to women who cannot carry a pregnancy? With Republicans narrowing women's personhood to just their reproductive organs, the future looks bleak.

What about couples with leftover embryos? Will they be required to implant them, regardless of personal circumstances? The potential for these reproductive laws to dictate the lives of women is alarming.

As infertility rates rise with age, many couples seeking IVF treatments are older. If IVF becomes prohibitively expensive, women may face difficult choices between career and motherhood, exacerbating existing wage gaps.

The poorest states, including Alabama, often have the highest wage disparities, deterring companies from setting up operations in regions lacking educational support and gender equality.

This anti-science, religiously-driven stance is a well-trodden method of controlling populations through fear and poverty. The narrative taught in schools about the Pilgrims escaping religious persecution is more complex. The truth is, they sought to escape poverty and war while maintaining control over their religious practices.

The Supreme Court frequently draws from “English Common Law.” Perhaps they should also reflect on the common religious context of their decisions.

Chapter 2: YouTube Insights

In the video titled "Professor calls Alabama Supreme Court ruling on frozen embryos 'uncharted territory'," a legal expert discusses the implications of this ruling and how it redefines the status of frozen embryos in Alabama.

The second video, "Days and Hours Matter Here: Alabamians speak out against Alabama Supreme Court IVF ruling," features Alabamians expressing their concerns and frustrations regarding the recent decision and its impact on IVF practices in the state.

Carlyn Beccia is an award-winning author and illustrator of 13 books. For past articles grouped by subject, see my Table of Contents. For free content every Wednesday, subscribe to Conversations with Carlyn, or become a paid subscriber to get exclusive content on Sundays.