Fallout from Alabama Supreme Court’s Frozen Embryo Decision

TFD – Dive into the repercussions of the Alabama Supreme Court’s groundbreaking ruling on frozen embryos, stirring debates over reproductive rights and medical legislation.

Following the Alabama Supreme Court’s historic judgment last week that frozen embryos are children, there is still fallout. Critics fear this decision may restrict access to IVF treatments in the state.

The most recent advancements are as follows:

A bipartisan effort is underway in the Alabama House and Senate to draft “clarifying” legislation that would “protect” in vitro fertilization treatments following the court’s ruling, state legislative sources told CNN.

One source stated that identical legislation is expected to be filed soon by Republican state senators, though they did not know when exactly.

The lawmakers’ actions are in response to concerns expressed by medical professionals and opponents that the court’s ruling, which could expose persons who discard embryos to liability for wrongful death, could have a disastrous impact on the state’s fertility treatment programs and individuals wishing to conceive through IVF.

Already, at least three fertility clinics in Alabama have halted certain IVF treatment programs amid concerns that their medical personnel could be at legal risk.

What the judge decided

In a landmark decision, the court declared that embryos, whether they are within or outside of a uterus, are children and are therefore entitled to protection under Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. This act permits parents to file a lawsuit for punitive damages in the event that their child passes away.

A 2018 amendment to the Alabama constitution that guarantees protections for “the rights of the unborn child,” including the right to life, was acknowledged by the court in its majority ruling.

Prior to the court’s ruling, the Medical Association of the State of Alabama expressed concern that the decision would expose fertility specialists to a “enormous potential for civil liability” due to the possibility of embryo damage or unsuitability for pregnancy occurring at any stage of the IVF process, including the thawing phase.

The decision could also mean people are unable to discard embryos if they no longer wish to use them, requiring them to be stored in perpetuity – even if one or both of the parents die, the association said.

However, it’s still unclear what the court’s ruling means in terms of law, and the Alabama Attorney General’s Office hasn’t provided any clarification.

“It’s not our case,” Amanda Priest, spokesperson for Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, told CNN Thursday. “We have not participated in any way.”

Priest stated that she was unable to disclose if clinics requesting legal advice had contacted the office. When asked directly if the state will prosecute those who destroy embryos, she didn’t answer right away.

Opponents worry about a big knock-on effect.

Critics and medical professionals are worried that the decision may have far-reaching effects on Alabamans receiving or seeking reproductive therapies, and they caution that it may soon have significant ramifications across the nation.

It could prevent medical professionals from performing infertility treatments out of fear of being held liable every time an embryo does not result in a successful pregnancy, they claim. It could also mean parents will now be required to pay for lifelong storage fees of embryos they will never be allowed to discard, even if they decide they do not want any more children. Finally, they claim it could send liability costs skyrocketing, making fertility treatment prices prohibitive for many families.

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Greg Cook expressed his disapproval in his dissenting opinion, stating that he “no doubt that there are many Alabama citizens praying to be parents who will no longer have that opportunity.”

“Knowing that they have to keep such frozen embryos forever or risk the penalty of a Wrongful Death Act claim, no reasonable medical provider would continue to provide services for creating and maintaining frozen embryos,” Cook said.

Dr. Andrew Harper, a reproductive physician in Alabama, stated that the decision has given him “motivation to move embryos from in-house to outside, off-site storage facility.”

Harper stated that patients would then be able to make decisions about their own treatment. He declared, “In the end, the patient should have the freedom to decide how to proceed, whichever her preference may be.”

The ruling’s detractors also fear that it has set up a path for organizations and lawmakers across who may want to focus on reproductive therapies.

The CEO and president of RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, Barbara Collura, stated, “We’re going to see other states trying to codify that. You now have a Supreme Court that very emphatically say that a frozen embryo is a person.”

“I’m just attempting to maintain my emotional composure.”

The days that have passed since the court verdict have been confusing and full of uncertainty for women and partners in Alabama who are attempting to conceive through in vitro fertilization (IVF). This has added an additional level of stress to a process that is already emotionally and physically taxing.

Kelly Belmont, an IVF patient in the state, claimed that contemplating the decision is “consuming my life completely.”

According to Belmont, CNN, “it’s absolutely terrifying to think that we could be ending our journey to be able to have children after investing so much time, money, and just physical and emotional anguish into this process.”

She stated that all therapies are now being provided by Belmont’s fertility clinic, but her husband is concerned that this might change.

Belmont remarked, “I’m just trying to hold myself together emotionally.” It’s really demanding. And as everyone who has ever attempted conception will attest, stress is among the worst things that can happen to you.

Those who have already kept their embryos in Alabama are now left wondering if they will be able to choose to get rid of them within the state or if they will have to pay unwelcome storage costs for years to come.

Earlier this week, Dr. Mamie McClean of Alabama Fertility Specialists told CNN that since the verdict, she has already received concerns from over thirty patients who fear they would lose control over what happens to their stored embryos.

“We are concerned that, in the worst scenario, this decision may come to pass and restrict our ability to maintain frozen embryos in Alabama. This could increase the risk and expense of fertility treatment for patients and ultimately restrict Alabaman women’s access to care,” McClean stated.

Would the Supreme Court hear the case?

Although the judges in Washington, DC, are authorized to review state supreme court decisions, they often decline to hear appeals of state court decisions that do not involve a reading of the US Constitution or federal law.

The judges’ interpretation of state law and an amendment to the Alabama constitution formed the exclusive basis of the majority decision in this case.

According to Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law and CNN Supreme Court expert, there is probably no path to the US Supreme Court for this particular issue.

“Only decisions that involve a question of federal law may be subject to review by the US Supreme Court,” stated Vladeck. The question at hand is Alabama’s interpretation of its own state constitution.

“Unless I’m missing something, there could be a case claiming that Alabama’s constitution as so interpreted violates the federal Constitution, but that’s not this case,” Vladeck continued.