On Friday, February 16th, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos can be considered "children" under state law. This controversial decision emerged from a set of wrongful death cases where three couples sued a fertility clinic after their frozen embryos were destroyed in an accident. The state's top court, in a recent move, has now allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with their cases, marking a legal first that could have far-reaching implications for the world of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and fertility care in Alabama.
The crux of the court's argument, as penned by Justice Jay Mitchell, is that the 1872 state law, which permits parents to sue for the wrongful death of a minor child, extends to "all unborn children," thus including embryos in its ambit. This ruling, according to the all-Republican court, is in line with the state's previous stances on the issue, which have not differentiated between the developmental stages or the physical whereabouts of the unborn.
The reaction from the medical and advocacy communities has been one of alarm and consternation. Critics of the ruling, including Barbara Collura, CEO of RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, have labeled it a "terrifying development" that could severely disrupt, if not outright dismantle, the state's IVF services. The heart of the problem, as they see it, is the new and nebulous status of embryos as "children" under the law, which could ensnare fertility treatments in a tangle of legal and ethical complications.
The ruling's real-world fallout was evident when it was reported that at least one Alabama fertility clinic had paused its IVF services in the wake of the court's order. This development, as well as the case's unique and complex subject matter, has sparked a legal and social conversation about the role of the state in the private and personal business of family planning.
Central to the court's position is the 2018 addition of anti-abortion language to the Alabama Constitution, which the justices have interpreted as a broadside in the battle for the "sanctity of unborn life." This same document, the court has argued, does not distinguish between the legal status of the unborn, whether they are in the womb or a cryogenic tank.
Chief Justice Tom Parker, in a concurring opinion, further underscored the state's new, far-reaching policy on the subject, invoking the Bible and the "image of God" in the unborn. Meanwhile, Justice Greg Cook, the lone dissenter, warned of the major, if not fatal, roadblocks the ruling could pose for the state's IVF services.
The heart of the problem, as the case's participants and onlookers have framed it, is the law's new, uncharted course into the legal and moral standing of the unborn and the state's self-appointed right to litigate and legislate on their behalf. This, in the eyes of many, has set the stage for a new and deeply uncertain chapter in the story of reproductive rights and the right to family life in Alabama. The White House has also weighed in, with Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre criticizing the state's Republican leadership and the case's far-reaching potential to limit women's healthcare services.
