this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
210 points (99.1% liked)

Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related

2276 readers
142 users here now

Health: physical and mental, individual and public.

Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.

See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.

Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.

Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.

Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.

Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

“[T]he Wrongful Death of a Minor Act is sweeping and unqualified. It applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation,” the ruling said. “It is not the role of this Court to craft a new limitation based on our own view of what is or is not wise public policy. That is especially true where, as here, the People of this State have adopted a Constitutional amendment directly aimed at stopping courts from excluding ‘unborn life’ from legal protection.”

The ruling pointed to 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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Colors@lemmy.world 134 points 8 months ago (5 children)

If at any time a government document sites the “wrath of (theological deity)” it should be thrown out. Where the fuck is our separation of church and state?!?

Honest question, can someone tell me why this is being allowed in the courtroom? I’m curious what the loophole is.

[–] randoot@lemmy.world 39 points 8 months ago

It's so terrible it's hilarious. So if the Constitution says one needs to incur the wrath of God, can I say sure yeah thanks but obviously no legal repercussions by lowly humans please? I'll just take the wrath, to go.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 17 points 8 months ago

The loophole is Alabama. Democracy = will of the people, and that's what they want.

Apparently they want no IVF, no "science", no "doctors" in their state.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 11 points 8 months ago
[–] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 1 points 8 months ago

Alabama elects their supreme Court. Pedophile Roy Moore was elected twice.