What the State Supreme Court ruling really means
The Alabama Supreme Court issued their ruling in February in the LePage vs Mobile Infirmary Clinic. Many people in the media and U.S. Congress are using this ruling as an opportunity to convince the American public that “pro-life” supporters are on the fast track to outlawing In Vitro Fertilization, Contraception, and anything else they can think of to force women to have babies. Let’s look at the facts of the case.
LePage vs Mobile Infirmary Clinic is a case that was brought before the courts by 3 couples. These couples were having trouble conceiving a child on their own and made the decision to try to conceive using In Vitro Fertilization. They consulted with doctors at this clinic and went through the process to create embryos. These embryos were in frozen storage in the clinic waiting to be implanted when an unauthorized made their way into the storage room. For some reason, this person decided to open a storage container and take some of the embryos out. Because the extreme temperature burned their hands, they dropped the embryos and fled. By the time staff realized what had happened, the embryos were no longer viable. The 3 couples who had lost their embryos filed a lawsuit against the clinic for wrongful death.
What Were The Rulings?
The lower court dismissed the case on the grounds that embryos are not a person or child. However, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed this ruling. The court based their ruling on Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. Unlike the lower court, the State Supreme Court ruled that this law applies to all children, without exception. Because the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act does not specify any limitations based on age or location of a child, the Court issued a ruling based on the law as it is written.
The short answer to the question in the title of this post is that no, the State Supreme Court of Alabama did not just make IVF illegal. It did, however, interpret the law as it is written and give these children equal protection under the law, regardless of age or location. You can read the full ruling here: http://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/343D203A-B13D-463A-8176-C46E3AE4F695/docketentrydocuments/E3D95592-3CBE-4384-AFA6-063D4595AA1D
Why Did They Make This Decision?
The Court cited many examples of various writings to support their opinion. This is list of the highlights of the Court’s citings:
- The 1864 Webster Dictionary definition of the word “child” – defined as “the immediate progeny of parents”. This definition was used because it was the current definition when the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act was first passed in 1872.
- The fact that there is no legal precedent to “compel the creation of an unwritten exception for extrauterine children”. Under the Wrongful Death of a Child Act, children are children, regardless of location.
- The defendant’s concerns over the potential impact to public policy was not the concern of the court. Public policy impacts are the concern of the legislature and should have no influence over the court’s decisions based on the text of current law.
- Alabama’s Sanctity of Life Amendment, which was approved for addition to the State Constitution in 2018 by Alabama voters, states that is “the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.”
What The Chief Justice Had To Say
The judges that voted with the majority also made multiple references to the Holy Bible in their written opinions. Chief Justice Parker mentioned the fact that the citizens of Alabama had intentionally used the word “sanctity” in the Sanctity of Life Amendment and that it gave theological connotations to the value of human life. Chief Justice Parker also described the Sanctity of Life Amendment as “doing much more than simply declaring a moral value that the People of Alabama like. Instead, this constitutional provision tilts the scales of the law in favor of protecting unborn life.”
Chief Justice Parker also upheld his duty to the law and to the people of Alabama by reminding everyone that it is not in the pervue of the court to carve out an exception to the current law, stating that “This action would be unacceptable to the People of Alabama, who have required us to treat every human being in accordance with the fear of a holy God who made them in His image.”
Other Concerns That Were Addressed
Although there is a longstanding ethical norm against artificially gestating human embryos past 14 days of development, that norm has been wavering. Nothing prevents researchers from allowing human embryos to develop outside a womb for up to 8 or 9 weeks. Since there are no laws that address this issue, there is nothing preventing researchers from growing embryos outside the womb in a lab setting to viability or even to full term. There are currently technological limitations on this but almost constant advances in the technology continuously shrink these limitations. There would be nothing to stop these labs from growing babies for medical research.
Another concern that is raised when there are no protections on embryos or babies that are outside the womb is the fact that this lack of protections could be used in future cases to defend partial birth abortions. Because this procedure involves the murder of a baby that has not officially been born but is also not technically inside the womb, not providing protections for babies that are not in the womb, regardless of age, would open the door to using this to defend this procedure.
Is One of These Babies Worth Less and Not Worthy of Protection Under The Law and the Right to Life Because of Where They Are Located?
In summary, the Alabama State Supreme Court used current Alabama State Laws to determine to that all life has value and should be protected under the current laws. All babies, even at the embryo stage, are unique individuals. They have their own DNA and fingerprints, will have their own appearance and personality. All people, no matter their age, were created in the image of God and are entitled to the equal protection under the law, including the right to life.