|
Post by easye on Feb 21, 2024 11:10:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Feb 21, 2024 13:27:19 GMT -5
That wrongful death lawsuit seems absurd. Imagine being the person judged by the court to be an accidental mass murderer of sorts.
This will kill the IVF industry in the state, seems like a massive business liability when one power/equipment failure can bankrupt the entire operation.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Feb 21, 2024 16:13:28 GMT -5
I look forward to male maturation being equated with genocide.
I'm not even sure if I am being sarcastic anymore.....
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 329
|
Post by skyth on Feb 21, 2024 16:25:59 GMT -5
It'll come to the point where every time a woman has her period, she will be investigated, as that is a potential human that wasn't born...
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Feb 21, 2024 17:03:15 GMT -5
There is some serious misunderstanding of the law here. First of all, this is not an anti-abortion law. It's a law about situations like someone who punches a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage. The parents are the only people who can take action under the law and presumably in the case of IVF the parents will have no interest in suing their doctors over a procedure they specifically asked and paid for. A third party can not sue anyone under this law, nobody can sue a woman for having a natural miscarriage, etc.
Second, this is a CIVIL law not a criminal law. Nobody is going to jail for anything under this law, it merely establishes the right to sue the guilty party in civil court. And while I am not a lawyer I would expect IVF clinics to simply require a signed contract agreeing not to sue over the normal disposal of excess embryos. They might still be liable if, as in this case, the destruction is caused by the clinic's negligence or incompetence, but I don't think the normal disposal is going to be a problem.
Now, is it a great ruling and law? Not really. But the hyperbolic interpretations of it aren't helpful.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Feb 21, 2024 17:06:17 GMT -5
The key part is the assertion that frozen embryos are the equivalent to people in the eyes of the law.
That sets a precedent now for other rulings related to a broad range of topics. I'm no lawyer though.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Feb 21, 2024 17:16:30 GMT -5
The key part is the assertion that frozen embryos are the equivalent to people in the eyes of the law. That sets a precedent now for other rulings related to a broad range of topics. I'm no lawyer though.
I don't think it sets a precedent because it was already the intent and precedent of the law that the child didn't have to be born yet, a precedent in line with other similar laws (and the classic "punching a pregnant woman" case). The real interpretation here is embryo in a storage container vs. embryo inside the mother and the court ruling establishes that the technicality that they haven't been implanted yet doesn't mean the parents lose their rights. It would be a much greater reach to argue that the embryo is a person in any context where it is clearly not the intent to apply the law to anything but an actual fully developed and born child. For example, I don't think any court would seriously consider the argument that the embryos are "people" for census purposes and Alabama gets another representative in congress as a result of an IVF clinic's storage facility.
(And note that Alabama already has a near-total ban on abortion so this ruling has no effect there.)
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Feb 21, 2024 17:28:31 GMT -5
I think that while you're right in general, the court outcome does not have a logical conclusion per se. The reasons why a court might think one thing but not follow up that thought with further rulings is completely arbitrary depending on their ideological needs. When the Alabama SC Justice start quoting the Bible I think logic has mostly left the table.
Depending on the scale of the outcome of the lawsuit potentially driving out the IVF industry due to untenable standards, this probably won't go much further.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Feb 22, 2024 10:47:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Feb 22, 2024 12:04:31 GMT -5
Such a dumb take to get media headlines. By her logic, she also had (potentially) dozens of leftover 'children' that were never born or 'used'.
At least just throw it on the parental rights angle that Peregrine noted above.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Feb 22, 2024 12:08:24 GMT -5
Clintonian levels of triangulation.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Feb 22, 2024 12:12:17 GMT -5
They're just folding themselves into pretzels to please the anti-abortion crowd.
There is a sane argument to be made regarding the preservation of potential children, i.e. IVF might be your only/last solution for them biologically, so protections/regulations have to be better.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Feb 23, 2024 1:17:55 GMT -5
Apparently Haley has already backtracked.
|
|
|
Post by dabbler on Feb 23, 2024 1:39:49 GMT -5
Apparently Haley has already backtracked. I don't know if backtracked is the right word. If she just said the complete opposite when she was on CNN or MSNBC or something it's not backtracking, it's just telling a different story to a different audience
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Feb 23, 2024 2:21:53 GMT -5
Yep, this is a reminder that Haley is only better than Trump because the bar is under the floor. She's still a terrible candidate.
|
|