this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
131 points (98.5% liked)

Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related

2344 readers
79 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
 

According to the decision, people in Alabama could theoretically be sued for destroying a frozen embryo, raising questions about in-vitro fertilization.

After three miscarriages in less than a year, Gabby Goidel said she was diagnosed with unexplained genetic infertility.

For reasons that aren't clear to doctors, any fetus she carries has a higher-than-average likelihood of genetic abnormalities, she said, so there is a slim chance she'd be able to carry a pregnancy to term without in-vitro fertilization.

To avoid the possibility of additional miscarriages, Goidel and her husband, Spencer, decided last year to pursue IVF in their home state of Alabama.

IVF allows doctors to test embryos for genetic abnormalities, then implant only the ones that are healthy.

The Goidels were on track to freeze embryos later this month, and they planned to only store the ones that were genetically normal.

But on Friday, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos created through IVF are considered children under state law, meaning people could theoretically be sued for destroying an embryo.

The Goidels began to worry whether they might be forced to store — or even use — embryos they had intended to discard.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 31 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

I wrote this the other day, when the ruling was first announced:

So they’re just skipping over zygotes, fetuses, infants, and babies, and skipping right to children? Are they also counted as taxpayers? Eligible recipients of child tax credits? Eligible recipients of SNAP? Federal Medicaid benefits? EBT? I bet they don’t get to vote. If they get considered by the state as children, then their parents should receive federal and state entitlements under the law.

Can’t have your heat cake and eat it too, Alabama. That knife cuts both ways.

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

I was just wondering about this line of thinking.

Can you get birth certificates for your fertilized unimplanted eggs?

Can you get child tax credits for those egg?

Can you file for disability benefits for the eggs since they have very rigid requirements for their care and can't support themselves?

And so on. Really milk that state government for all you can. If you face legal liability, make them face civil liability. Fair's fair.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

That might work better as an argument if they didn't want to get rid of these programs too.