@erin ARE they rightfully being cautious though?

That's the point. Just because a clinic halts treatment doesn't mean we should throw out what we can read with our own eyes.

It's a form of gaslighting at that point.

Really, it suggests that any clinic honestly halting IVF for legal reasons needs to throw out their legal counsel because clearly they are getting bad advice.

We can see for ourselves that the ruling doesn't say that. The question of whether an IVF clinic should stop their practice is a completely different question.

@volkris @erin am I wrong or was there not a case just decided where it was found that dropping a glass container would be equivalent to wrongful death if that container held fertilized eggs for IVF? Would that not be a new type of liability for them? And doesn’t treating fertilized eggs as receiving the same legal protections as a four year old entail some criminal risk from the people carrying the glass containers and, as a routine part of the IVF process, discarding unneeded fertilized eggs?

@jayalane

Yes, you are wrong.

Or to be more accurate, you are misinformed because a whole lot of special interests are misinforming the public about what happened. A whole lot of people are spreading misinformation about what the ruling was about and what it said.

Which is just, very very sadly that happens every single day today.

No, that's not what the ruling said. At all. And the ruling went out of its way to try to head off that kind of misreporting, but the misreporting happened anyway.

@erin

@volkris @erin the first sentence of the ruling is: This Court has long held that unborn children are "children" for purposes of Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, § 6-5-391, Ala. Code 1975, a statute that allows parents of a deceased child to recover punitive damages for their child's death. So it seems to you who are lying.

@jayalane and a statute allowing punitive damages for the death of a child is certainly not one that outlaws IVF.

The ruling was very clear about that.

@erin

@volkris @erin a statute allowing punitive damages for a routine part of the IVF process is certainly going to be a sort of regulatory ban on the process, just as the many regulations put on abortions forced many providers out of business.

@jayalane No, this case involved an incident that was not a routine part of the IVF process, and the court went through that exact distinction in its ruling.

@erin