The Alabama Supreme Court Rules the Birthright of a Child and Its Implications to Fertilization Treatment in the State of Alabama

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law, a decision critics said could have sweeping implications for fertility treatment in the state.

“Unborn children are ‘children’ … without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics,” Justice Jay Mitchell wrote in Friday’s majority ruling by the all-Republican court.

Dr. Paula Amato, president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said a decision to treat frozen fertilized egg as the legal equivalent of a child or gestating fetus could limit the availability of modern health care.

Sean Tipton, a spokesman with the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said at least one Alabama fertility clinic has been instructed by their affiliated hospital to pause IVF treatment in the immediate wake of the decision.

The court ruling came one day after she began injections to prepare for egg donations, said Goidel.

It kind of took me by surprise. It was a very stressed out thing to hear and I just couldn’t think about it. I immediately asked my clinic if this could stop us. Goidel was told they have to take it one day at a time.

The lawyer for the fertility clinic in the lawsuit, Center for Reproductive Medicine, said that they had no further comment at this time.

The decision of an anti-abortion group. “All of them, from the smallest embryo to the elder nearing the end of their lives, have incalculable value that deserves and is guaranteed legal protection,” Rose said in a statement.

The Chief Justice of Alabama wrote in his decision that the death of life would cause the wrath of a holy God. Only one justice of the Supreme Court disagreed.

The 1872 law did not define a “minor child”, but was stretched from the original intent of covering frozen embryos, according to Justice Greg Cook.

Supporters at the time said it would have no impact unless states gained more control over abortion access. States gained control of abortion access in 2022.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the Alabama decision reflected the consequences of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and blamed Republican elected officials from blocking access to reproductive and emergency care to women.

“This president and this vice president will continue to fight to protect access to reproductive health care and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law for all women in every state,” Jean-Pierre told reporters aboard Air Force One.

The UC Davis Professor of Laws Revisited: Why the Freezing Location of an IVF Clinic in Alabama is Unreasonable

“I was not surprised,” said Jill Lens, a professor of law at the University of Arkansas and an expert in reproductive rights. “Alabama Supreme court has for a long time, enthusiastically applied wrongful death law to pregnancy losses and [if] it’s a person the second it’s in the womb – if it’s a person, it’s a person. I’m not sure why the freezer location would matter.

In other words, anyone who’s been following Alabama’s abortion debate should have seen it coming in a state where prosecutors have arrested pregnant women for engaging in behaviors like taking drugs that could be harmful to a fetus. Alabama outlaws all abortions, making no exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

No other state has the right to determine personhood of fertilized eggs. And even in states that allow the prosecution of women who put the health of their fetuses at risk, most do not apply that prosecution statute to pregnancies before the 24th week. That is the age at which doctors consider a fetus to be able to live outside the womb.

The security of the hospital where the frozen embryos were being stored went wrong. A random patient grabbed the embryos, then dropped them, as a result of gaining access to the lab.

The irony, here, is that the very lawsuit filed by the three couples who were upset when their embryos were destroyed may actually end up making it far more difficult for Alabmians who are struggling to conceive naturally.

All Things Considered host Ailsa Chang speaks to UC Davis Professor of Law Mary Ziegler, who breaks down the possible downstream legal implication for how IVF is performed.

Does the Alabama Supreme Court Rule that Every Single IVF Embry is Required to be Implanted in a Person or a “Deperate Person”?

Ziegler: It’s pretty low, because of the way the Alabama Supreme Court framed its decision. It grounded very firmly in Alabama state constitutional law. And so I think this is the kind of ruling that could eventually have some reverberation at the U.S. Supreme Court, but it’s very unlikely to be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

So in other words, some anti-abortion groups argue that if an embryo was a person, every single embryo created has to be implanted, either in that person who’s pursuing IVF, or some other person who “adopts the embryo.” So as a result of that, it may radically change how IVF works, how cost effective it is, and how effective it is in allowing people to achieve their dream of parenthood.

The man is called Ziegler. Well, if Alabama IVF providers feel obligated to implant every embryo they create, that’s likely to both reduce the chances that any IVF cycle will be successful. It may make it a lot more expensive. IVF is already very expensive. I think the average is between $15,000 and $20,000 per cycle. Patients don’t succeed with IVF after a single cycle. If you are not allowed to create more than one embryo a cycle, it will be more difficult for people who don’t have insurance to access fertility treatments.