In a theology-heavy ruling, the Alabama Supreme Court will allow a couple to sue for the "wrongful death" of their frozen embryos obtained through IVF.

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday that frozen embryos are children, which pro-choice rights groups have warned could have dangerous implications for fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization.

The Alabama Supreme Court on Friday reversed Mobile County Circuit Court Judge Jill Parrish Phillips’ decision to dismiss a lawsuit in which a couple sued an Alabama fertility clinic and hospital for the “wrongful death” of their frozen embryos in a ruling that was riddled with theology. The couple’s frozen embryos were destroyed after a hospital patient who accessed the freezer that held the embryos dropped them on the floor. The ruling means that the couple can sue for wrongful death.

This should end well. /s

  • hydroptic
    37·
    9 months ago

    Being as I am from the Nordics where religion is generally not too visible in public life, seeing language that is this explicitly religious in legal text is just mind-boggling:

    the Alabama Constitution Section 36.06, which argues that each person was made in God’s image, meaning each life has an incalculable value that “cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God.”

    Also, here’s a completely random legal factlet for you: the Criminal Code of Finland was originally written into law in 1889 and it still has an “intro” from tsar Alexander III of Russia. It translates to approximately this:

    We Alexander the Third, by the Grace of God, Emperor and Sovereign of the whole Russian Empire, Tsar of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland, etc., etc., etc., etc., do hereby make known: by the subordinate proposal of the State Legislatures of Finland, We hereby graciously establish the following criminal code for the Grand Duchy of Finland, the enforcement of which, as well as the execution of penalties, shall be the subject of a special decree

    That’s the only part left of the original law, the rest has been amended a zillion times and I think the oldest sections in the current text are from the 70’s. Why that bit from the tsar is still there is honestly a good question, considering our time under Russian rule isn’t exactly fondly remembered (although wasn’t nearly as bad as what they got in the Baltics for example).