Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alabama health system pauses IVF treatments after court embryo ruling

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 27 posts

Re: Alabama health system pauses IVF treatments after court embryo ruling

#11

Post by olliej »

lebean wrote: post #8

Why can't the states rights people do something to expand rights, not shrink them?

Because the people who claim "states rights" only ever do so when they're being forced to treat other people equally.

Recall they vigorously opposed any state allowing same sex marriage, and even got DOMA passed so that if a couple got married in a state that allowed same sex marriage, the marriage would not be recognized anywhere else.

You know, standard bigot stuff.

Anyway, the overlap between people shouting "states rights" and people claiming the south did not start the civil war, and that the civil war was not about slavery, is large enough that anyone who comes out with "states rights" as their presumptive argument is automatically suspect to me. If you can't come up with an argument for your position beyond "because I [believe I] can", that's a BS position.

Re: Alabama health system pauses IVF treatments after court embryo ruling

#12

Post by olliej »

1letterunixname wrote: post #3
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #2

As far as "replacement theory" goes, this'll be sure to increase the already-declining (rapidly) fertility rate /s ...

The census will have to add lines for "unborn people (metabolically active)" and "unborn people (metabolic stasis)". /s IVF is the domain of the upper middle-class and the rich. So around 80% of Alabama IVF users are likely to be Republicans in agreement with white nationalist lite, Christian fundamentalist patriarchy. Complaints will be ignored by the self-righteous triumphalist legislature proud of ramming through…

Much like the abortion bans these states are enforcing today, and just as was the case in the past, these laws do not impact the rich.

The rich could get abortions before roe v wade, they can get them today. The same applies to IVF, but now even if you were middle class with health insurance that did cover IVF (it's unclear whether this is mandatory or not), health insurance does not cover travel or accommodation needed for treatment.

Re: Alabama health system pauses IVF treatments after court embryo ruling

#13

Post by mindslight »

1letterunixname wrote: post #3
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #2

As far as "replacement theory" goes, this'll be sure to increase the already-declining (rapidly) fertility rate /s ...

The census will have to add lines for "unborn people (metabolically active)" and "unborn people (metabolic stasis)". /s IVF is the domain of the upper middle-class and the rich. So around 80% of Alabama IVF users are likely to be Republicans in agreement with white nationalist lite, Christian fundamentalist patriarchy. Complaints will be ignored by the self-righteous triumphalist legislature proud of ramming through…

I was right there with you on the outrage, having read a few other articles on the subject. But a few details in this article made me look at the actual decision, and the specific outcome is much less obtuse than has been implied. Bad facts make bad law, as they say.

Basically two couples went through IVF, created embryos, and those embryos were frozen. Some other patient at the hospital gained access to the lab through an "unsecured" door, opened up the frozen storage container, pulled the embryos out, and promptly dropped them (extreme cold), destroying them. The plaintiffs are looking at the hospital for civil damages, due to the negligence of not securing the storage.

The court's decision seems like a straightforward application of how Alabama's constitution was previously amended regarding the unborn. Philosophically, I do not agree with that amendment - especially as its main aim is as a wedge for preventing straightforward women's medical care in favor of more lethal options.

But I've also got a hard time brushing aside these would-be parents' desire for accountability from the hospital for the deaths of what they had hoped would be their children. In this case the "rights of the unborn" and the rights and desires of the parents were aligned (rather than being in conflict as in most situations of this topic). The hospital should not be allowed to hide behind the standard disclaimers about medical outcomes not being assured, or the vanishing "market value" of tissue samples, to shirk basic responsibility that would have easily prevented the plaintiffs' horrible losses.

I do agree the implications of the decision being available as a precedent aren't great on a few fronts, but that responsibility rests on the constitutional amendment itself.

Re: Alabama health system pauses IVF treatments after court embryo ruling

#14

Post by icandoit »

mindslight wrote: post #13
1letterunixname wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The census will have to add lines for "unborn people (metabolically active)" and "unborn people (metabolic stasis)". /s IVF is the domain of the upper middle-class and the rich. So around 80% of Alabama IVF users are likely to be Republicans in agreement with white nationalist lite, Christian fundamentalist patriarchy. Complaints will be ignored by the self-righteous triumphalist legislature proud of ramming through…

I was right there with you on the outrage, having read a few other articles on the subject. But a few details in this article made me look at the actual decision, and the specific outcome is much less obtuse than has been implied. Bad facts make bad law, as they say. Basically two couples went through IVF, created embryos, and those embryos were frozen. Some other patient at the hospital gained access to the lab thro…

My latest newborn has to have two bracelets and never leave the room. I understand the concern, but would like to push back on the increase in cost and restrictions.

Safety-maximalism will maximize expense, we agree on that?

As a customer can I opt into a safety/cost ratio from 20 years ago? With today's technology and medicine that would result in affordable abundance.

Re: Alabama health system pauses IVF treatments after court embryo ruling

#15

Post by hollywood_court »

Stuff like this is why all of my friends and peers are leaving Alabama. I would love to leave but my wife refuses to leave while my MIL is still alive and living near by.

Of course all of the stats say that plenty of people are moving to Alabama. But not the kind of people you want as neighbors. Thanks, Fox News.

Re: Alabama health system pauses IVF treatments after court embryo ruling

#16

Post by squizzle »

from the article, worth discussion right?

The Wrongful Death of a Minor Act “applies to all unborn children, regardless of their location,” wrote Alabama Supreme Court Justice Jay Mitchell.

In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tom Parker quoted scripture to note that divine law recognizes all human life as sacred.

“Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory,” Parker wrote. “We believe that each human being, from the moment of conception, is made in the image of God, created by Him to reflect His likeness.”

Re: Alabama health system pauses IVF treatments after court embryo ruling

#19

Post by squizzle »

squizzle wrote: post #16

from the article, worth discussion right? The Wrongful Death of a Minor Act “applies to all unborn children, regardless of their location,” wrote Alabama Supreme Court Justice Jay Mitchell. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tom Parker quoted scripture to note that divine law recognizes all human life as sacred. “Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed withou…

divine law. as per what and who again?

Re: Alabama health system pauses IVF treatments after court embryo ruling

#20

Post by everforward »

olliej wrote: post #11
lebean wrote: post #8

Why can't the states rights people do something to expand rights, not shrink them?

Because the people who claim "states rights" only ever do so when they're being forced to treat other people equally. Recall they vigorously opposed any state allowing same sex marriage, and even got DOMA passed so that if a couple got married in a state that allowed same sex marriage, the marriage would not be recognized anywhere else. You know, standard bigot stuff. Anyway, the overlap between people shouting "stat…

I don't think that's quite fair, I think there are reasonable reasons to be for state rights.

Or, in my own words, it's less than I favor state rights and more that I disfavor federal rule.

Federal rulings are winner-take-all. It doesn't matter if 49.9% of the country disagrees, everybody is now bound by the new rule. There is no fallback for them; they can't move to a city or state that has the rules they want.

Being bound by rules that you don't agree with, that your city doesn't agree with, that your state doesn't agree with breeds resentment and culture wars.

We're a country of 300 million people with vastly different backgrounds and beliefs. We are unlikely to reach a national consensus on contentious issues. We can either rule by tyranny of the majority and piss off everyone that disagrees, or give people more self-determination by running things state-by-state where their vote is worth like 50 times more than at the national level.

I won't pretend it's a panacea. Terrible things have been done in the name of state's rights. I don't agree with what Alabama is doing, but I do understand this outcome is important to the people of Alabama. They should have as much of a right to direct their government as anyone else. Even if they want to do things I don't agree with.

California or New York are likewise free to do what they want. Frankly, they could probably offer some kind of publicly funded "state relocation" program to give people from conservative states the funds to relocate, and they'd probably profit off of it.

I also think most of the federal rights crowd is disingenuous. I didn't hear anyone complaining about state rights when California legalized weed or gay marriage. Many states are still defying the federal government with legal weed.

Really, I think whichever side has a majority in the federal government supports federal rights, and the loser supports state rights. Federal rights are popular among liberals because they've been successful at getting the rules they want (for the most part until very recently). Everything is well and good when the tyranny of the majority is on your side.

I think if that flips and conservatives become dominant at the federal level, state rights will become much more important to liberals.

Post reply on HN