The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are “children.”

Since last year, Jasmine York, 34, and her husband have been trying to have a baby. The couple, both nurses, began freezing embryos before they got married in March 2023.

York had her first embryo transfer in August 2023, but the transfer failed, she told ABC News.

Determined to grow their family, the couple tried again, and they are currently undergoing their second round of in-vitro fertilization, or IVF.

But, after the Alabama Supreme Court issued a new decision last week ruling that frozen embryos are considered children, they say their embryo transfer appointment scheduled for March 20 was canceled by her hospital.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    9 months ago

    Now it’s in their faces and they can’t run away from it.

    They can kill pregnant women and chalk it up to Gods’ will. Now they are denying people babies to save babies.

    I want to see how crazy the debate gets

  • MsPenguinette@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    9 months ago

    I assume the ruling was “embyos are and always have been children”. Wonder if there isn’t any malicious compliance options for people who’s treatments have stopped?

    Can’t think of anything off the top of my head, but the ruling was insane so there has to be some sort of insane tort someone can come up with

      • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        And just keep them frozen indefinitely. “I see you’ve been claiming your… children… as dependents for the past…” checks notes “…38 years. How old are they now?” “Oh, they’re approximately -9 months old.”

        • init@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          What about women who don’t have any embryos stored, but have functioning ovaries? They should be claiming about 6 million dependents, right?

      • MsPenguinette@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        This is the obvious one, but my brain keeps trying to think of something much more evil-chaotic and accelerationist.

        Like, suing the clinic that stopped treatments for kidnapping. Or demanding visitation

    • BakerBagel@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      What people aren’t getting is that the ruling is actually entirely consistent with right wing logic. If you are opposed to Plan B pills because they prevent fertilization from occuring, then IVF is essentially mass murder. More stories like this are going to be coming down the pipe pretty soon.

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      They didn’t really have any choice, really, if they want to ban abortions.

      The only way to ban abortions is to call it murder by declaring the embryo a human being instead of a clump of cells.

      Now by doing that, how to you say an embryo in the womb is a human being but an embryo outside of the womb is not?

      They trapped themselves trying to accomplish an agenda that has nothing to do with science or logic.

  • tygerprints@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    What doesn’t follow for me in this court ruling, is how declaring embryos to be frozen “children” is meant to DETER women from getting IVF treatments. If anything, shouldn’t it be even more of an incentive and an encouragement FOR IVF treatments? Shouldn’t we want these poor frozen tots to have a nice warm womb of their own?

    Of course the whole basis of the ruling is not about caring about children. It’s about how many more rights conservitard morons can strip away from women, while the rest of us have no choice but to sit back and watch it happen, without any power to stop it.

  • Player2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    34
    ·
    9 months ago

    The ruling itself is terrible, but I’m not sure about considering not being inseminated to be ‘heartbreak’

    • EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      If it’s the only way they had hope of having children ‘of their own’ and that’s important to them, it would easily be deemed heartbreak to have the process lag or seize in any way.

    • Duranie@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      If you spend time (often years) + money (tens of thousands) + putting your body through treatments (hormone therapy to harvest eggs) + significant emotional investment to achieve any very personal goal (to carry a child into your family) only to have that taken away, heartbreak is one of the most appropriate descriptors.

    • tygerprints@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      If you were a woman you’d know why it’s heartbreaking. A society that raises you to believe you’re completely worthless as a woman unless you have umpteen kids, it’s no wonder so many women say they feel suicidal after learning they can’t bear kids or need additional help to get pregnant.