U.S.A. Alabama on their way to eliminating IVF

[Advocate for Ants! Mouth]

Major Alabama hospital pauses IVF after court rules frozen embryos are children

The case in Alabama stems from a lawsuit brought by three couples whose frozen embryos were lost at a clinic.

www.bbc.com

Not the intended goal, but an unintended consequence. The Alabama supreme Court, obviously Uber republican, used a law that Alabama put on the books a couple years ago to say embryos are protected and children and that anyone who causes damage to them is liable. Since then, one major hospital has already stopped treatments. More will likely follow as they try to determine liabilities and risks.

What happened: a patient walked into where embryos were stored and accidentally destroyed some by dropping something. No idea how the patient got there. The couples affected decided to sue.


This could be disastrous if it leads to the whole state and others no longer offering IVF. For some couples it's the only way to have children, including cisgender straight couples. The article I posted mentions ~100000 children born in 2021 were from IVF. This is not negligible. Expect this to be played into campaigns this year, Nikki Haley has already said she sides with the Alabama law (and I believe she had IVF treatments in the past).


And as always in the world of politics, people will suffer. Some people who already had treatments started now do not get to continue (there's prep work and lots of needles and shots for women). Some couples will at least be delayed. Some might be delayed enough where it could no longer be viable. The party of life is preventing families from bringing new life into the world.

 

[Mark]

And as always in the world of politics, people will suffer.

…and as always, the dried up sacks of shit that decided on this aren’t affected, because their bits and pieces stopped working years ago, and the people in support of this are so insufferable that it doesn’t even matter if their parts work because no one in their right mind is going to want to procreate with them, and the ones that did likely regret it.

I don’t know too many IVF babies in my personal life, just my little cousins. My aunt couldn’t conceive after she had her first son, and required IVF and other treatments to ultimately conceive her twins… which is really the ONLY concern people should have about IVF. The odds of having multiple babies increase dramatically, and that’s a lot to deal with when you’re not even 100% sure you can have a viable pregnancy with just one.

With that said… when are we gonna stop telling other people what they can or cannot do with their bodies within the context of reproduction? Hasn’t anyone learned the pushback these decisions get?

 

[Jon]

This is where I don't understand the right wing. You want to claim EVERYTHING is a life. You want to FORCE women to put their bodies through literal HELL even if in danger in most cases. And you also want to cut all the programs that help SUPPORT both women AND those children... Then you're surprised when people are outraged.

There was a story here last week I read about a crew that followed a mother in... Georgia? Alabama? One of these deep red states... She's a recovering addict who lost her two older children to DCF, has a baby, was pregnant with her 4th kid while the toddler is still under two AND her husband is also a recovering addict. She had complications with her third child and due to a messed up c-section, was having complications with the 4th pregnancy. She also was broke and coming out of rehab, but Roe V Wade was JUST overturned at the time and she couldn't afford to travel out of state. Hers had a FULL ban on abortion after 6 weeks, no exceptions. She was FORCED to carry to term. The complications from the 3rd pregnancy cause her 4th to be born SUPREMELY early and at risk (she was 2 lbs at birth), was stuck in NICU for 2 months while both parents were FORCED back to work after 2 weeks because there is no parental leave. She was working in insulation, OF ALL THINGS...

She couldn't get government help because they were SLIGHTLY above poverty definition... Now, the mother has turned to alcohol and turned herself in as an old charge she thought was cleared came around on her... so she's in prison.

It's despicable what right wing politicians want from this. I say if you want to force a woman to have a child then YOU, the politician, are PERSONALLY responsible for funding all that child's needs till it is 18.

Oh, you won't do that? THEN FUCKING LEAVE WOMEN'S RIGHTS ALONE YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES!

 

[Kat]

I read something interesting once which talked about how people who are anti abortion will generally claim (and possibly believe) it's about fetuses being people and all human life being precious, but if you look at the other things they support (death penalty, organ donation, welfare, etc) then it seems unlikely. Being against abortion is much more strongly correlated with a "mating strategy" which benefits from preventing other people from being promiscuous. Basically if you're married with kids and relying on your spouse for support, you don't want it to be easy for other people to sleep around, because your spouse could leave you for somebody else, and then you'd be fucked.

 

[Raine]

Not the intended goal, but an unintended consequence.

I would respectfully disagree. The overall chilling effect is the entire point of this completely repugnant - and universally stupid - decision being made.

The cruelty is the point, anything to "win," yadda yadda.

With that said… when are we gonna stop telling other people what they can or cannot do with their bodies within the context of reproduction?

Never, and not only within the context of reproduction.

Can't stick your dick into a man, can't be the person you are inside, can't wear the clothing you like, can't live in peace if you aren't the flavor-of-the-day definition of societal beauty (which is neither practical nor healthy). Can't be too short, too tall, too fat, too skinny, must have a skin tone within a specific range, must look freshly moisturized and hair-free, teeth better be impossibly white and straight (hurr hurr), Baphomet help you if you were born with or life's hardships gave you any sort of unique characteristics. On, and on, and on.

These particular assholes are, at the end of the day, mostly interested in regaining complete control over women. But if they ever actually achieve that, rest assured they wouldn't stop there.

 

[Jon]

must have a skin tone within a specific range,

Considering we had a fucking Oompa Loompa for a president, apparently orange is the new white.

 

[Advocate for Ants! Mouth]

I would respectfully disagree. The overall chilling effect is the entire point of this completely repugnant - and universally stupid - decision being made.

Oh I know cruelty is the point. I was more staying this was a happy accident for them.

They're willing to sacrifice other people's abilities to have children if it means they get control and can specifically prevent things like single women who have enough means from becoming a mother without being married or lesbian couples from giving birth.

 

[shortkut]

It all depends on if conservative white families want to do IVF… that’s the only thing that can lead to it getting changed

 

[Raine]

They're willing to sacrifice other people's abilities to have children if it means they get control and can specifically prevent things like single women who have enough means from becoming a mother without being married or lesbian couples from giving birth.

Oh for sure, for sure. Absolutely agreed on all fronts.

I just... go a little further. Okay, a lot further. I don't have anything that can be remotely described as a neutral thought about these people, much less positive. So everything from child/slave labour, to the raping and subjugation of women, to the imprisonment/conscription of men and/or women that can't "fulfill their purpose" I would expect to have been meticulously considered by a wide range of right-wing think tanks before this went through. The politicians are fucking idiots, but the minds and the money behind them are not.

The fact that only well-to-do people can really partake of IVF isn't an obstacle. Even in non-Christian Standard Family arrangements, if the man is the problem then he's easily replaced. If the woman is the problem, there are many... options, that one can imagine and that do not actually need to be elaborated on beyond "they ain't good for the woman."

The babies they don't want to restrict being born are the poor ones, 'cause that's what keeps their operation running. As long as that isn't impeded, and they can double down on it, everything else is fair game - but they aren't necessarily accidents or bonuses.

 

[Mark]

It all depends on if conservative white families want to do IVF… that’s the only thing that can lead to it getting changed

For the longest time, those were the only ones able to afford it. Don’t forget… it has been within our lifetime that IVF has been included with some insurance coverage, and even still, the out of pocket expenses are astronomical.

 

[Raine]

People that are well-off can also just... leave the state of Alabama and have it done.

That's something else to consider; if it's not at the Federal level, it ain't affecting the people doing the stupid. And traditionally "blue" states aren't passing bullshit like that, so, they never actually have to worry about not being able to get abortions or IVF or anything of the sort.

 

[shortkut]

I’m not expecting Alabama residents to realize they can leave the state for it

 

[Mark]

I’m not expecting Alabama residents to realize they can leave the state for it

Exactly. The wild thing is, it could start off in states like Alabama and predominantly affect poor people from that region, but lets say theoretically that it picked up momentum similarly to cannabis legalization in other states, and it reaches a point where nearly half the states have a law in place like cannabis does now. You could effectively remove groups of people from the American “gene pool” so to speak.

 

[Jon]

Exactly. The wild thing is, it could start off in states like Alabama and predominantly affect poor people from that region, but lets say theoretically that it picked up momentum similarly to cannabis legalization in other states, and it reaches a point where nearly half the states have a law in place like cannabis does now. You could effectively remove groups of people from the American “gene pool” so to speak.

This. This was always my biggest concern. Affluent, richer, influential people aren't affected by ANY of this. Poor, struggling and most middle class (what's left of it anyway) are. This is a form of forced Darwinism and it's set this country back to prior to ANY of our births.

 

[Fire Queen]

feels appropriate to mention that there are people still alive today who were forcibly (and usualy without their consent/knowledge) sterilized by the state of north carolina's eugenics board

 

[Kat]

feels appropriate to mention that there are people still alive today who were forcibly (and usualy without their consent/knowledge) sterilized by the state of north carolina's eugenics board

From that page:
""The Board remained in operation until 1977. During its existence thousands of individuals were sterilized. In 1977 the N.C. General Assembly repealed the laws authorizing its existence,[6] though it would not be until 2003 that the involuntary sterilization laws that underpinned the Board's operations were repealed.[7]"

I don't know why I'm still surprised by these things.

 

[Fire Queen]

the reason why it's 2003 is that most of the investigative journalism that's the reason the public at large knows about any of this happened in 2002 lol

 

[Kat]

Alabama legislature trying to fix their mess: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/22/1233270447/alabama-lawmakers-move-to-protect-ivf-treatment

Article:

"They just read the bill, and the way it's written, it's like if you're going to say from conception, it's life, which I do believe it is. But it's not a viable life until it's implanted in the uterus," Melson said about Friday's ruling.

It's not necessarily a viable life after it's implanted either!

 

[Raine]

If I believed for a second that any of these assholes were sincere, I may grant their alleged inner turmoil a modicum of consideration and empathy. If they truly believed in the sanctity of life and the preservation of the soul - and, again, to be clear: they fucking don't - I could see where trying to decide, as a mere mortal, the precise moment a soul is born (or joins the embryo/fetus) would be difficult and fraught with peril.

Thankfully they don't so I can just unilaterally spit in their face at every possible juncture. Fucking reprehensible clowns.

I don't know why I'm still surprised by these things.

Because you're a decent person and expect that other people are decent, too.

...They're not, obviously. Conversion Therapy still exists.

Conversion Therapy is Still Happening

Practitioners are currently working in almost every U.S. state.

time.com

 

[Mark]

Alabama legislature trying to fix their mess: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/22/1233270447/alabama-lawmakers-move-to-protect-ivf-treatment

Article:

"They just read the bill, and the way it's written, it's like if you're going to say from conception, it's life, which I do believe it is. But it's not a viable life until it's implanted in the uterus," Melson said about Friday's ruling.

It's not necessarily a viable life after it's implanted either!

We can’t expect a bunch of geriatric fucks to understand human reproduction. They’re the same generation that grew up thinking ladies piss and procreate from the same hole, and yet… with all the marvels of science and high-definition pornography, you still can’t tell them a damn thing.

Because you're a decent person and expect that other people are decent, too.

...They're not, obviously. Conversion Therapy still exists.

Conversion Therapy is Still Happening

Practitioners are currently working in almost every U.S. state.

time.com

“We can fix THEM, but there’s not a damn thing we need to fix about ourselves.”

 

[Ants!]

Solution is to tell them that abortions might mean fewer Dreamers who are immune from deportation.

 

[Ants!]

*cue meme of guy sweating over which button to press*

 

[Raine]

To the surprise of absolutely fucking nobody, ever:

Article:

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice spreads Christian nationalist rhetoric on QAnon conspiracy theorist's show
Chief Justice Tom Parker’s recent concurring opinion in a case granting rights to embryos drew criticism for invoking religious language

During a recent interview on the program of self-proclaimed “prophet” and QAnon conspiracy theorist Johnny Enlow, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker indicated that he is a proponent of the “Seven Mountain Mandate,” a theological approach that calls on Christians to impose fundamentalist values on all aspects of American life.

Enlow is a pro-Trump “prophet” and leading proponent of the “Seven Mountain Mandate,” a “quasi-biblical blueprint for theocracy” that asserts that Christians must impose fundamentalist values on American society by conquering the “seven mountains” of cultural influence in U.S. life: government, education, media, religion, family, business, and entertainment.

Enlow has also repeatedly pushed the QAnon conspiracy theory, sometimes even connecting it to the Seven Mountain Mandate. Per Right Wing Watch, Enlow has claimed that world leaders are “satanic” pedophiles who “steal blood” and “do sacrifices” and that “there is presently no real democracy on the planet” because over 90 percent of world leaders are involved in pedophilia and are being blackmailed.

On February 16, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are people, with the same rights as living children, and that a person can be held liable for destroying them, imperiling in vitro fertilization treatment in the state. In a concurring opinion, Parker quoted the Bible, suggested that Alabama had adopted a “theologically based view of the sanctity of life,” and said that “human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God.”

Source: https://www.mediamatters.org/qanon-conspiracy-theory/alabama-supreme-court-chief-justice-spreads-christian-nationalist-rhetoric

Also,

 

[Kat]

What the actual fuck?

I feel like I should add something else, but that's all I've got.

 

[Quagmire]

This will be like when they cracked down on illegal immigrants and then had to roll back the law because no one wanted to work the jobs they were working

 

[Rachel]

I just had a hilarious image of golden rays of sun coming from the uterus the moment the IVF embryo is implanted with angels singing

before it was a few cells, but the moment it touches that sweet, sweet uterus? (Aka the moment it's part of the woman?)

Well now that's sacred

 

[Kat]

Oh man, the cognitive dissonance in this article is almost painful to witness: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68396485.amp

Article:

But the chief justice's theocratic justification has left Margaret puzzled. She doesn't believe in abortion but she also struggles to see a frozen embryo as a living person. For her, life begins with a heartbeat.

Emphasis mine:

Article:

"It's a win philosophically for the pro-life movement because it carries on the pro-life recognition of unborn life," said Eric Johnston, president of the Alabama Pro-Life Coalition.

"But you get into a very difficult situation, where you have this medical procedure that's accepted by most people, and then how do you deal with it? That's the dilemma.

"I agree with the opinion overall - I think it's well written opinion from the legal side and from the medical side," he added.

"But I think the pro-life community in general supports IVF, and I've known and worked with many people who have had children via IVF. And at the same time, they think abortion is wrong. This issue is so different from abortion, but it has to do with life."

Oh, so when you realize that defining life at conception is inconvenient, suddenly it's "first heartbeat" instead? It sucks when somebody fucks with your whole life because their definition differs from yours and they got the government to enforce their opinion, doesn't it? Think they will stop voting to outlaw abortion?

 

[Raine]

People will origami and pretzel themselves as hard as they need to in order to justify what they already stubbornly and stupidly believe. They take the ending statement/goal and work backwards from it, often ignoring the inconsistencies that arise because it's a singular direction of movement with no additional thought applied.

Which means that, if someone were so inclined (and unfortunate enough to be having a conversation with one of these people...), it's actually very easy to repeatedly break their brain. The schism that exists between "Vaccines are against my religion" and "It's okay to enter the realm of God and play with life" (IVF), for example, they are absolutely not equipped to contend with.

They are not okay, shockingly, with the concept that "God doesn't want you to have children of your own" - but also God is infallible, and so there's definitely a reason children should be shot up in school and no reason in reality that I actually exist. The idea "God wants me to adopt a child already on this Earth and ease their plight and suffering" is alien to them. They have to have their own flesh and blood, by any means.

I mean fucking Unholy Baphomet, I have seen legitimate talk about amending the laws for the practices of cloning in the last week. That's suddenly not going too far now? Remember Dolly the Sheep? Remember all the outcry over Stem Cell Research?

Because clearly they don't.

 

[Rachel]

I think it's important to take a step back and remember how this started

A rogue person snuck into the cryo room (which for some reason was not very secure--maybe they can't keep it super locked down in case there is a fire and possibly they have an evac plan that could save the embryos?) and stupidly didn't understand that the embryos are kept in sub-zero temps and attempted to grab the container. Then got cold burns on their hand and dropped the embryos and ran away.

Imagine how devastating that is for the would-be parents. That is NOT okay. Because nothing too severe can happen criminally (which is important because other mistakes can happen that are unforeseen without involving a rogue actor, the power can go out, a fire, etc etc), they pursued a civil court solution. But I doubt they wanted to shut down IVF in the state as a result, they wanted to punish the person to the full extent they could legally.

Also, notice that the pro-life crowd never protests outside IVF clinics, which discards unused embryos all the time. Why is that not killing babies under their definition? It's only when it's in the woman.

 

[Raine]

But I doubt they wanted to shut down IVF in the state as a result, they wanted to punish the person to the full extent they could legally.

Sure, the couples originally involved in the incident are obviously pro-IVF. And they are victims, both of the facility's negligence and of the random patient mucking about where they don't belong for whatever reason.

They're going to continue to be victims because even if frozen embryos are fair game for wrongful death suits, that's not a guaranteed win. Given the circus around the story and the implications for people all throughout Alabama and southern/red states at large, even, I would find them less likely to succeed now. Plus for good measure their past and future actions could be legally punishable for good measure.

Why does this read more like “to avoid liability for the hospital and the health department for allowing a wandering patient unopposed access to confidential medical data and specimens, we’ve decided to allow dumbass patients to be criminally charged for our negligence on bloated charges to sway a jury with terminology that can illicit an emotional response” than anything?

Oh? Because it DOES?

I'm sure there's an element of that present as well, yeah. Can't be having for-profits being held liable for anything after all.

But frozen embryos are already considered property (oh that's a fun consideration... lol), and definitely something that can be easily understood as incredibly expensive and irreplaceable, so the legal avenues and remedies already exist. This, then, is to go further - wrongful death does not, to a layperson, carry a greater payout (also a fun consideration) or necessarily increase the odds of a successful outcome. Just because you can sue for something doesn't mean you're guaranteed anything. And, if anything, I think most judges and jurors would laugh at this and think less of the bereaved, regardless of the validity of the theoretical legal avenue, just because it sounds manipulative and stupid.

Icing on the shit cake, then.

 

[Mark]

Sure, the couples originally involved in the incident are obviously pro-IVF. And they are victims, both of the facility's negligence and of the random patient mucking about where they don't belong for whatever reason.

They're going to continue to be victims because even if frozen embryos are fair game for wrongful death suits, that's not a guaranteed win. Given the circus around the story and the implications for people all throughout Alabama and southern/red states at large, even, I would find them less likely to succeed now. Plus for good measure their past and future actions could be legally punishable for good measure.

Honestly, this whole thing feels more like an excuse to target IVF. Much like when a mass-shooting happens and the gun control nuts go wild, or when the police do something ridiculous to an individual and the “defund the police” nuts go wild. It’s an election year, which means ANYTHING that can be used as an arguing point will be. I don’t think the victims even matter to the people attempting to put light on this incident as much as what stands to be lost or gained in putting it up for deliberation. It sucks to think that way, but we’ve seen people toyed with for less.

 

[Ants!]

Sure dude. It’s the people wanting gun control who are nuts.

 

[Mark]

Sure dude. It’s the people wanting gun control who are nuts.

I believe it’s fair to say that there are “nuts” on both sides of that debate, whether they feel the need to protect their house with more guns than they have hands to fire them with, or those who wanna take guns from law-abiding citizens to curtail the actions of those who ignore laws to begin with. Both are ridiculous when you break them down.

I don’t think Jim-Bob needs to take a rifle with a 30 round magazine to go grocery shopping, and I think you’d agree with that. However, if Jim-Bob pulled that rifle on some dipshit Kyle that got picked on and decided to shoot up that same grocery store and took him out, saving children or women or minorities or whoever Kyle decided he had it out for that day from an unnecessarily early grave… you’d probably be singing a different tune, no? There’s a solution in a middle ground, though, which is the generalized point I was making.

 

[Fire Queen]

now, if you wanna cherry-pick, sure, you can look hard enough and find some examples of Jim-Bobs exercising their second amendment rights and averting crime. the Heritage Foundation has compiled some of those stories here:

Yes, Democrats, Sometimes a “Good Guy With a Gun” Does “Stop the Bad Guys.” Here’s Proof.

In a press conference defending the state’s new restrictions on concealed carry permit holders, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, told reporters last month: “This whole concept that a good guy with a gun will stop the bad guys with a gun, it doesn’t hold up. And the data bears this out, so...

www.heritage.org

i’m sure that organization is not biased at all. definitely don’t look up Project 2025 or anything

furthermore i think it’s worth mentioning that taking peoples guns ≠ gun control. that is not something any gun control activist speaking in good faith thinks is reasonable, actionable, or constitutional. at the very least all they want is for it to be much harder to purchase a firearm, especially if you have a history of domestic abuse (far and away the highest predictor of large-scale gun violence is if someone has a history of domestic abuse)

 

[Advocate for Ants! Mouth]

Okay. This topic isn't about gun control so let's keep it on IVF and fertility rights.

 

[Jon]

Okay. This topic isn't about gun control so let's keep it on IVF and fertility rights.

Yeah, don't get me started on the bastardization of the second amendment...

 

[Mark]

Okay. This topic isn't about gun control so let's keep it on IVF and fertility rights.

Agreed. I’ll just come right out and say it… No one’s gonna sway me, the guy that lives in a state that regulates guns in a way most gun control supporters would ideally like to do nationwide, that has had more illegal guns pointed at or fired at than I’d like to admit and has lost more loved ones to guns than I’d like to think about. I have every reason to hate guns. Every bullet point, pun intended, people make about them has affected me in some way, shape, or form. Not once has it been because of a legal gun owner, and there’s a good chance my loved ones and friends would still be here if they had equal power to a firearm. However, they weren’t allowed to protect themselves because people insulated from the inner city violence felt that the easier solution was to ban guns rather than target the individuals actually committing the crimes, invest in mental health, follow through with thorough background checks, etc.

I’ll never say that people shouldn’t defend themselves with equal measures because of someone else’s comfort. Keyword. Defend. No one knows what they’ll have to do to another person in the act of self-preservation.

Apologies, @A Pineap-Alu-zer, it just irks me when someone acts like I’m saying something irrational without thinking to themselves “hmm… I wonder why he feels this way?” or… I dunno… asking. Clearly, I have no problem sharing my opinion. Just don’t assume I’m some looney toon that just wants more guns on the streets.

 

[Advocate for Ants! Mouth]

And back to our regularly scheduled WTF with IVF where we can talk about how 125 members of Congress sponsored a bill that would also not protect IVF at all. There are clearly some national Republicans who don't see this as a bad move (including the speaker of the house).

 

[Kat]

Sure, the couples originally involved in the incident are obviously pro-IVF. And they are victims, both of the facility's negligence and of the random patient mucking about where they don't belong for whatever reason.

They're going to continue to be victims because even if frozen embryos are fair game for wrongful death suits, that's not a guaranteed win. Given the circus around the story and the implications for people all throughout Alabama and southern/red states at large, even, I would find them less likely to succeed now. Plus for good measure their past and future actions could be legally punishable for good measure.

At this point, they're their own victims, since they're the ones who filed a wrongful death lawsuit and started this mess. If they believe embryos are people then they shouldn't even be getting IVF in the first place. They can't have it both ways. I'm not sympathetic at all.

 

[Kat]

And back to our regularly scheduled WTF with IVF where we can talk about how 125 members of Congress sponsored a bill that would also not protect IVF at all. There are clearly some national Republicans who don't see this as a bad move (including the speaker of the house).

Haley initially came out as supporting this decision, despite the impact on IVF. I think she has since backpedaled due to backlash, but yeah, there are definitely prominent politicians who are 100% on board treating all embryos as having more rights than existing people despite all the obvious harm it causes. It's absolutely wild. Most people are against abortion bans, and I think most of the people for them would change their minds if they thought about it enough. Since when do politicians cater so much towards extremists?

 

[Ants!]

Okay. This topic isn't about gun control so let's keep it on IVF and fertility rights.

 

[Advocate for Ants! Mouth]

 

[shortkut]

Okay. This topic isn't about gun control so let's keep it on IVF and fertility rights.

The only thing stopping a bad fetus with a gun, is a good fetus with a gun

 

[Fire Queen]

Since when do politicians cater so much towards extremists?

in america at least, since at least the reagan neo-con era created a direct connection between the extremely wealthy christian fundamentalist lobby and the framework of the national government