dawnnikol
Prolific Pea
'A life without books is a life not lived.' Jay Kristoff
Posts: 8,555
Sept 21, 2015 18:39:25 GMT
|
Post by dawnnikol on Feb 20, 2024 22:50:43 GMT
I am not trying to make light of the IVF issues, but this person brings up a good question:
|
|
|
|
Post by sideways on Feb 21, 2024 0:47:43 GMT
These points were brought up by The Mamattorney. This basically opens up a legal hellscape. Moms charged with involuntary manslaughter after miscarriage, fertility clinics and physicians sued for wrongful death if embryos don’t take, moms sued by fathers for refusing to implant.
Some of these sound crazy, but things that sounded crazy just a few years ago have happened.
To all of you who voted republican: you own this just like you own women losing their fertility, health, and sometimes their lives when they couldn’t get therapeutic abortions.
|
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Feb 21, 2024 0:53:07 GMT
fyi.. 1/5 of all ob/gyns in the state of idaho have left or stopped practicing. most the state has no coverage.. as most the docs left practice in the cities.. rural idaho has few to no docs and no maternity wards...
and 2 docs came to the state last year.. so good luck for having that baby.
|
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Feb 21, 2024 2:13:19 GMT
I'm sure their rationale will be that you won't need all those frozen embryos. You can just adopt a baby from a woman who was going to have an abortion but carried to term instead and then put the child up for adoption - as God intended. It's God's plan. It will all even out in their minds.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 21, 2024 2:20:38 GMT
Side note on a national abortion ban that I hadn't thought about. Trump or another Republican could pass a federal 16 week abortion ban but leave stricter ones in place. Effectively imposing restrictions on the more liberal states without loosening restrictions in places that have already banned abortion. And potentially overriding states where they put abortion on the ballot. So much for states' rights. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/20/trump-abortion-16-weeks-2024/By Alexi McCammond Opinion editor February 20, 2024 at 12:00 p.m. EST New reporting from the New York Times suggests Donald Trump is privately supporting a federal 16-week abortion ban with exceptions for rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother. Apparently, the former president arrived at this position in part because 16 is a round number. (I wish I could make that up
But all things considered, Trump’s stance is not nearly as extreme as what we’ve seen from many others in his party. So I asked Post Opinions columnists Megan McArdle and Ruth Marcus: Is Trump softening on abortion?
Alexi McCammond: Hello there! Thank you both for doing this on a holiday. I feel like Trump has been pretty smart about abortion politics so far. Is his position on this issue kinda … reasonable?
Ruth Marcus: No. No. No. It sounds reasonable, but don’t be bamboozled by it. Here’s why: First, a 16-week national ban does not, as I understand it from the Times’ reporting, prevent states from having more draconian restrictions. It would only prevent liberal states that want to be more protective of abortion rights, and that’s about 30 states at the moment, from doing so. So the notion that this decision should be left to the states — which Trump once endorsed — would be overtaken by the rule that states get to be as restrictive as they want but not as permissive as they want.
Alexi: So that means under a President Trump there’d be no future for these abortion ballot initiatives we’ve seen across the country that have enshrined reproductive rights in those states’ constitutions.
Ruth: Second, even if this were not the case, 16 weeks sounds more reasonable than it is in reality. There would be no exceptions except for rape, incest and the life of the mother. We have seen with terrible, tragic cases in Texas and elsewhere what happens to women in dire but perhaps not imminently life-threatening situations, how illusory these supposed “exceptions” are. In addition, there would be no allowance made for the similarly terrible situations in which the fetus is discovered to have a life-threatening or drastically life-limiting condition. These tend to be diagnosed after 16 weeks, and a majority of women terminate pregnancies in such situations. They would no longer be permitted to make that choice. Bottom line: This is a ruse. Don’t fall for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 21, 2024 2:28:35 GMT
This opinion makes some really good points about the immediate and more long term dangers of the Alabama ruling. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/20/alabama-frozen-embryos-ruling-human/Welcome to the theocracy.
I don’t use that word lightly, not about life in the United States. But read the Alabama Supreme Court ruling declaring that frozen embryos — “extrauterine children” in a “cryogenic nursery,” the court calls them — are human beings.
Especially read the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Tom Parker on the meaning of the Alabama Constitution, which declares that “it 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.” Parker cites Genesis (man is created “in the image of God”), the prophet Jeremiah (“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you”), Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and other Christian thinkers to support his view that the state constitution adopts a “theologically based view of the sanctity of life.”
This is no surprise coming from Parker. An ally of then-Chief Justice Roy Moore of Ten Commandments-in-the-courthouse fame, Parker has denounced Roe v. Wade as a “constitutional aberration” and suggested that state courts should resist implementing the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage.
I’ll quote at length so you know I’m not exaggerating about theocracy. The Alabama constitution’s “sanctity of unborn life” provision, he wrote, “encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself.”
Alabama law, he said, “recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life — that even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.”
At one point, he described the embryos — frozen within a few days of fertilization, when they consist of perhaps a few hundred cells — as “little people.”
Whoa. There’s a part of the U.S. Constitution that might be relevant here. It provides that the government — and that includes the government of Alabama — “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” If Parker has heard of this part of the First Amendment, he never mentions it.
The plaintiffs are three infertile couples whose embryos were destroyed because of what they claim is negligence on the part of the fertility clinic that froze the embryos for later use. (A wayward patient somehow wandered through an unlocked door, picked up a container with the embryos and dropped it.) The couples sued under the state’s 1872 Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, which the Alabama Supreme Court has previously said applies to “unborn children.”
Infertility takes a huge emotional, physical and financial toll; embryos are precious, whatever you think of their moral status. So these are sympathetic plaintiffs, although the fertility clinic pointed out that they’d had successful procedures resulting in children; had embryos remaining; and had variously consented to having the remaining embryos destroyed after five years or in other circumstances.
So, is a frozen embryo an unborn child?
The trial court said no. The Alabama Supreme Court disagreed, a result, according to the dissent, that “no court — anywhere in the country — has reached.”
The ruling went off the rails from the start. “All parties to these cases, like all members of this Court, agree that an unborn child is a genetically unique human being whose life begins at fertilization and ends at death,” wrote Justice Jay Mitchell.
Whoa again. “All parties” in this case might agree, but there’s vigorous debate, as much a matter of theology as of science, about when life begins — most relevantly, whether it begins at fertilization, before implantation in the uterus. It’s nonsensical to think that a law enacted in 1872, before there was any concept of in vitro fertilization, would apply to such situations.
Mitchell, citing the state constitution, said any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the embryo. How contorted is this? He conjured up a hypothetical future scenario in which fetuses could be brought to term in artificial wombs to conclude that such children would not be considered people entitled to legal protections; ergo, “extrauterine children” must be deemed unborn children covered by the law.
This decision is dangerous on two levels — one immediate, the other longer-term but equally sinister.
The imminent danger is to the availability of IVF in Alabama. As the clinic and the Alabama Medical Association argued, if embryos are unborn children protected by the wrongful-death law, creating and storing embryos will be unduly risky.
The ruling “almost certainly ends the creation of frozen embryos through in vitro fertilization” in the state, wrote dissenting Justice Greg Cook. The costs of exposure to civil lawsuits would be enormous, and — although Alabama’s criminal homicide law refers only to the “unborn child in utero” — who knows what could happen in terms of criminal prosecution? Ominously, the Alabama Supreme Court noted it had “no occasion” to decide that question.
The longer-term danger — indeed the apparent longer-term goal — is to raise and expand the definition of unborn personhood, to go after birth control methods and reproductive technologies that involve fertilized eggs. Will fertility clinics be permitted to dispose of unused frozen embryos? Could states prohibit in vitro fertilization altogether? Will IUDs, birth control pills or the morning-after pill be banned?
The ultimate aim, of course, is to have the fertilized egg declared a person from the moment of conception, under state constitutions and, ultimately, the 14th Amendment. And guess who’s been at the forefront of that movement. Alabama’s now-chief justice, Tom Parker.
As I said, welcome to the theocracy. This being Alabama, even the dissenting justice referenced his “deeply held personal views on the sanctity of life.” |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 21, 2024 2:37:15 GMT
One way to solve it all... Donate, support, talk up what has been accomplished in three years and how we need Biden reelected, take the Senate and House with a protected majority. Vote for Democrats all the way down ballot!!
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Feb 21, 2024 9:33:58 GMT
This opinion makes some really good points about the immediate and more long term dangers of the Alabama ruling. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/20/alabama-frozen-embryos-ruling-human/Welcome to the theocracy.
I don’t use that word lightly, not about life in the United States. But read the Alabama Supreme Court ruling declaring that frozen embryos — “extrauterine children” in a “cryogenic nursery,” the court calls them — are human beings.
Especially read the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Tom Parker on the meaning of the Alabama Constitution, which declares that “it 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.” Parker cites Genesis (man is created “in the image of God”), the prophet Jeremiah (“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you”), Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and other Christian thinkers to support his view that the state constitution adopts a “theologically based view of the sanctity of life.”
This is no surprise coming from Parker. An ally of then-Chief Justice Roy Moore of Ten Commandments-in-the-courthouse fame, Parker has denounced Roe v. Wade as a “constitutional aberration” and suggested that state courts should resist implementing the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage.
I’ll quote at length so you know I’m not exaggerating about theocracy. The Alabama constitution’s “sanctity of unborn life” provision, he wrote, “encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself.”
Alabama law, he said, “recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life — that even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.”
At one point, he described the embryos — frozen within a few days of fertilization, when they consist of perhaps a few hundred cells — as “little people.”
Whoa. There’s a part of the U.S. Constitution that might be relevant here. It provides that the government — and that includes the government of Alabama — “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” If Parker has heard of this part of the First Amendment, he never mentions it.
The plaintiffs are three infertile couples whose embryos were destroyed because of what they claim is negligence on the part of the fertility clinic that froze the embryos for later use. (A wayward patient somehow wandered through an unlocked door, picked up a container with the embryos and dropped it.) The couples sued under the state’s 1872 Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, which the Alabama Supreme Court has previously said applies to “unborn children.”
Infertility takes a huge emotional, physical and financial toll; embryos are precious, whatever you think of their moral status. So these are sympathetic plaintiffs, although the fertility clinic pointed out that they’d had successful procedures resulting in children; had embryos remaining; and had variously consented to having the remaining embryos destroyed after five years or in other circumstances.
So, is a frozen embryo an unborn child?
The trial court said no. The Alabama Supreme Court disagreed, a result, according to the dissent, that “no court — anywhere in the country — has reached.”
The ruling went off the rails from the start. “All parties to these cases, like all members of this Court, agree that an unborn child is a genetically unique human being whose life begins at fertilization and ends at death,” wrote Justice Jay Mitchell.
Whoa again. “All parties” in this case might agree, but there’s vigorous debate, as much a matter of theology as of science, about when life begins — most relevantly, whether it begins at fertilization, before implantation in the uterus. It’s nonsensical to think that a law enacted in 1872, before there was any concept of in vitro fertilization, would apply to such situations.
Mitchell, citing the state constitution, said any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the embryo. How contorted is this? He conjured up a hypothetical future scenario in which fetuses could be brought to term in artificial wombs to conclude that such children would not be considered people entitled to legal protections; ergo, “extrauterine children” must be deemed unborn children covered by the law.
This decision is dangerous on two levels — one immediate, the other longer-term but equally sinister.
The imminent danger is to the availability of IVF in Alabama. As the clinic and the Alabama Medical Association argued, if embryos are unborn children protected by the wrongful-death law, creating and storing embryos will be unduly risky.
The ruling “almost certainly ends the creation of frozen embryos through in vitro fertilization” in the state, wrote dissenting Justice Greg Cook. The costs of exposure to civil lawsuits would be enormous, and — although Alabama’s criminal homicide law refers only to the “unborn child in utero” — who knows what could happen in terms of criminal prosecution? Ominously, the Alabama Supreme Court noted it had “no occasion” to decide that question.
The longer-term danger — indeed the apparent longer-term goal — is to raise and expand the definition of unborn personhood, to go after birth control methods and reproductive technologies that involve fertilized eggs. Will fertility clinics be permitted to dispose of unused frozen embryos? Could states prohibit in vitro fertilization altogether? Will IUDs, birth control pills or the morning-after pill be banned?
The ultimate aim, of course, is to have the fertilized egg declared a person from the moment of conception, under state constitutions and, ultimately, the 14th Amendment. And guess who’s been at the forefront of that movement. Alabama’s now-chief justice, Tom Parker.
As I said, welcome to the theocracy. This being Alabama, even the dissenting justice referenced his “deeply held personal views on the sanctity of life.”This is the bit that terrifies me-and I believe that they mean to do it: “ The longer-term danger — indeed the apparent longer-term goal — is to raise and expand the definition of unborn personhood, to go after birth control methods and reproductive technologies that involve fertilized eggs. Will fertility clinics be permitted to dispose of unused frozen embryos? Could states prohibit in vitro fertilization altogether? Will IUDs, birth control pills or the morning-after pill be banned?” I wasn’t convinced a few years ago that they would really try this, but now it seems obvious that the evangelical branch of the right intends to go after birth control at some point. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Feb 21, 2024 11:38:42 GMT
This is a bit off topic, but my eyebrows went up when I read it. From this morning’s NYT:
“ Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. on Tuesday renewed his criticisms of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision recognizing the right to same-sex marriage, saying that people who oppose homosexuality risk being unfairly “labeled as bigots and treated as such.”
The justice included his warning in a five-page statement explaining why the court had rejected a request to hear a Missouri case about people removed from a jury after voicing religious objections to gay relationships. The case, Justice Alito wrote, “exemplifies the danger” from the court’s 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges.
The ruling, he added, shows how “Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government.”
The statement appeared to offer a glimpse into Justice Alito’s continued discontent with Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the court, by a 5-to-4 vote, guaranteed a right to same-sex marriage, a long-sought victory in the gay rights movement.
“ In the years since, Justice Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, who both dissented from the 2015 decision, have appeared to urge the court to reconsider the ruling. The court, they have contended, invented a right not based in the text of the Constitution and said it had cast “people of good will as bigots.”
“People of good will.” Let that sink in. Religion trumps all with these people.
If you think that they don’t mean to re-open Obergefell, then you are living under a rock.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 21, 2024 11:52:58 GMT
This is a bit off topic, but my eyebrows went up when I read it. From this morning’s NYT: “ Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. on Tuesday renewed his criticisms of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision recognizing the right to same-sex marriage, saying that people who oppose homosexuality risk being unfairly “labeled as bigots and treated as such.” The justice included his warning in a five-page statement explaining why the court had rejected a request to hear a Missouri case about people removed from a jury after voicing religious objections to gay relationships. The case, Justice Alito wrote, “exemplifies the danger” from the court’s 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges. The ruling, he added, shows how “Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government.” The statement appeared to offer a glimpse into Justice Alito’s continued discontent with Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the court, by a 5-to-4 vote, guaranteed a right to same-sex marriage, a long-sought victory in the gay rights movement. “ In the years since, Justice Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, who both dissented from the 2015 decision, have appeared to urge the court to reconsider the ruling. The court, they have contended, invented a right not based in the text of the Constitution and said it had cast “people of good will as bigots.”“People of good will.” Let that sink in. Religion trumps all with these people. If you think that they don’t mean to re-open Obergefell, then you are living under a rock. I suppose he’d say the same about civil rights legislation that casts some people as bigots and racists. Is it now the role of the court to withhold rights from some to protect the reputation of others? Alito sounds like he’s too old and unhinged for this job. |
|
|
|
Post by Bridget in MD on Feb 21, 2024 12:43:57 GMT
Any chance this case be brought to the US Supreme Court? With the ruling quoting the bible, I was shocked, I thought they were supposed to keep religion out of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 21, 2024 13:30:44 GMT
Any chance this case be brought to the US Supreme Court? With the ruling quoting the bible, I was shocked, I thought they were supposed to keep religion out of it? They’re very clear about the fact that they want to make the US a theocracy - the constitution notwithstanding. |
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Feb 21, 2024 13:55:47 GMT
This is ridiculous. Do they have any idea the percentage of embryos that even survive long enough to be implanted or become blastocysts, at which point they are frozen? And of those, how many, when genetically tested, are determined competent enough to produce a live birth? And then of those the percentage that actually do produce a live birth? Are we going to start punishing women whose embryos fail naturally by either not implanting or by miscarriage? Because that’s the large majority of embryos that are created.
And nah, Abbott will be fine, I’m sure the blame will be placed on the embryo storage facilities for not having adequate backup in case of complete power grid failure. These failures (not related to power grids even) are not an uncommon occurrence and thousands of embryos are lost at a time.
|
|
sueg
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,570
Location: Munich
Apr 12, 2016 12:51:01 GMT
|
Post by sueg on Feb 21, 2024 15:46:20 GMT
Do they have any idea the percentage of embryos that even survive long enough to be implanted or become blastocysts, at which point they are frozen? And of those, how many, when genetically tested, are determined competent enough to produce a live birth? And then of those the percentage that actually do produce a live birth? Are we going to start punishing women whose embryos fail naturally by either not implanting or by miscarriage? Because that’s the large majority of embryos that are created. I was stunned by the numbers when my DS told me during their first IVF egg capture. 12 eggs, only 8 fertilized, then only 3 were deemed suitable for implanting/freezing. And then - implant 1 was ectopic, and could have killed my DDiL, implant 2 did nothing and #3 luckily became Sophia. And then the same second time around, only this time they had nearly 40 eggs released (many too immature to fertilize), and still ended up with 3 viable embryos. All were frozen - the hyper-ovulation meant fresh implantation was too dangerous - and this time the first implant became Lucia. They are still not sure what they want to do with the last 2 ice-babies, but at least they are in Australia, where they can keep them frozen, donate or have them discarded (something DDiL doesn't want to do, but her doctor isn't sure that 2 more pregnancies would be good for her health either) |
|
|
|
Post by withapea on Feb 21, 2024 16:12:03 GMT
I am not trying to make light of the IVF issues, but this person brings up a good question: Texas in court recently claimed that they’re not responsible for a TX prison guard losing her baby, saying that an unborn baby doesn’t have rights. Yes the same people who have banned abortion to protect the unborn’s “rights”. And the Texan ( a GOPer too ) who poisoned his pregnant wife hoping to induce an abortion got 180 days in jail. There will never be good faith with these monsters, it is about power and control. They will worm their way out of any responsibility or accountability. I know these are TX and not Alabama but they’re the same ilk. Vile. |
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Feb 21, 2024 16:58:10 GMT
Do they have any idea the percentage of embryos that even survive long enough to be implanted or become blastocysts, at which point they are frozen? And of those, how many, when genetically tested, are determined competent enough to produce a live birth? And then of those the percentage that actually do produce a live birth? Are we going to start punishing women whose embryos fail naturally by either not implanting or by miscarriage? Because that’s the large majority of embryos that are created. I was stunned by the numbers when my DS told me during their first IVF egg capture. 12 eggs, only 8 fertilized, then only 3 were deemed suitable for implanting/freezing. And then - implant 1 was ectopic, and could have killed my DDiL, implant 2 did nothing and #3 luckily became Sophia. And then the same second time around, only this time they had nearly 40 eggs released (many too immature to fertilize), and still ended up with 3 viable embryos. All were frozen - the hyper-ovulation meant fresh implantation was too dangerous - and this time the first implant became Lucia. They are still not sure what they want to do with the last 2 ice-babies, but at least they are in Australia, where they can keep them frozen, donate or have them discarded (something DDiL doesn't want to do, but her doctor isn't sure that 2 more pregnancies would be good for her health either) I love hearing about successful IVF stories! I’m not sure of the laws there, but here you can donate them for adoption. We actually had a pea conceive one, if not 2 of her sons that way. My DH and I decided to do that with our extras, but we didn’t end up with any. We felt lucky that out of my 16 eggs all but 1 fertilized IIRC. Out of those we had a perfect one and a great one we transferred fresh, but only half a dozen made it to the blastocyst stage, which is what they wanted in order to freeze them. We lost half of those when they were thawed. Looking at things the way the Republicans are, does that mean the embryologist who thawed them was a murderer? Then with the eggs we purchased, 8 I believe, when fertilized maybe half of the embryos were found to be genetically sound/viable when tested. What should we have done with those that weren’t other than discard them? Should we have been forced to try and implant them? |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 21, 2024 17:49:22 GMT
Here's something I hadn't thought of. We're all familiar with certain medications that require women of childbearing age to be on birth control in order to have the medication, because they can affect fetal development. Many of these are essential medications. In a country without access to birth control, women also would not have access to those medications. x.com/SueSandersHere/status/1760301021497364897?s=20 |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 21, 2024 18:01:58 GMT
Any chance this case be brought to the US Supreme Court? With the ruling quoting the bible, I was shocked, I thought they were supposed to keep religion out of it? Religion has not much to do with the law. Beliefs have nothing to do with the law! You do not need to be a Christian to be a person of good will, in fact many many Christians today have proven multiple times they are NOT of good will! Who lets children suffer, die, go hungry, be sick, be unhoused, uneducated, taken from parents in mass, etc??!? The modern christians do it, ALL OF IT AND MORE!! |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 21, 2024 18:02:47 GMT
|
|
River
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,590
Location: Alabama
Jun 26, 2014 15:26:04 GMT
|
Post by River on Feb 21, 2024 18:17:37 GMT
I am so sickened by all of this. This is my state and UAB is where I did 3 rounds of IVF for my 3 wonderful boys. No matter how many eggs they retrieved, I only had one embryo each time to implant and none to freeze. I was so very grateful for IVF and everyone at UAB. They gave me children that I wouldn't have otherwise had.
I absolutely can't believe this is happening. I can't image the hurt and mental anguish the poor couples are going through right now because of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 21, 2024 18:48:30 GMT
Plenty of adoptable babies waiting..... Or so 'they' say!
Although people may be required to pass the GOP loyalty tests... Fake christian tests...
|
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Feb 21, 2024 19:41:21 GMT
Plenty of adoptable babies waiting..... Or so 'they' say! Although people may be required to pass the GOP loyalty tests... Fake christian tests... I think the estimates are that there are 36 couples for every one baby. Although you are right -- plenty of agencies out there either won't work with non-Christian couples or say they are working with the non-Christian couples but won't do placements with them. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 21, 2024 20:32:49 GMT
Be prepared.. Mitchell is the lawyer that just fought in SCOTUS Colorado ballot case... He also help write the Texas vigilant abortion law payments of $10,000.. The federal abortion ban plan Team Trump doesn't want you to know aboutJessica Corbett, Common Dreams February 21, 2024 7:36AM ET The architect of a Texas law that entices anti-choice vigilantes with $10,000 bounties supposedly wants former President Donald Trump and his allies to shut up about abortion until after the November presidential election—when right-wingers hope to implement "legally sophisticated" and unpopular forced-pregnancy policies. After reporting on Friday that Trump "likes the idea of a 16-week national abortion ban" with exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the pregnant person, The New York Times revealed on Saturday that lawyers and strategists in his "orbit" are crafting more complex plans. "We don't need a federal ban when we have Comstock on the books," attorney Jonathan Mitchell told the Times, referring to a dormant 1873 law heralded by an "anti-vice" crusader that criminalized the shipping of various "obscene" materials, including abortifacients. "There's a smorgasbord of options.""I hope he doesn't know about the existence of Comstock, because I just don't want him to shoot off his mouth," the lawyer added of Trump. "I think the pro-life groups should keep their mouths shut as much as possible until the election." Mitchell appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month to argue against an effort to remove Trump from Colorado's Republican primary ballot. He previously worked on the Texas vigilante law designed to circumvent Roe v. Wade, the historic abortion rights ruling that the justices—including three Trump appointees—overturned with their June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.And a whole lot more st link!! www.rawstory.com/the-federal-abortion-ban-plan-team-trump-doesn-t-want-you-to-know-about/ |
|
pinklady
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,060 
|
Post by pinklady on Feb 21, 2024 20:47:27 GMT
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,883
|
Post by Just T on Feb 21, 2024 23:15:27 GMT
This all disgusts me so much. How anyone can be okay with any of this shit is beyond my comprehension.
I have a dear friend who is pregnant right now with an IVF baby. She has been trying for years to have a baby. Miscarriages, so many frozen embryos, transfers that don't result in a pregnancy, etc. She still has a few frozen embryos. But thankfully for her, she lives in a state where abortion is legal.
Where you live should not matter what kind of healthcare you can receive.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 21, 2024 23:36:06 GMT
Regrettably, that didn't take long. I imagine the rest will follow suit. www.nytimes.com/2024/02/21/us/university-alabama-birmingham-ivf-embryo-ruling.htmlreAfter Ruling, University of Alabama at Birmingham Health System Pauses I.V.F. Procedures
The U.A.B. system said it was worried about potential criminal prosecutions after Alabama’s Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos should be considered children.
The University of Alabama at Birmingham health system announced on Wednesday that it was pausing in vitro fertilization treatments as it evaluated the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos should be considered children.
“We are saddened that this will impact our patients’ attempt to have a baby through I.V.F.,” a statement from the health system said, “but we must evaluate the potential that our patients and our physicians could be prosecuted criminally or face punitive damages for following the standard of care for I.V.F. treatments.”
The health system’s Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility will continue performing egg retrievals from women seeking fertility treatment, the statement said, but it will not undertake the next steps in the process — combining the eggs with sperm in a lab for fertilization, and allowing embryos to develop — for now.
“Everything through egg retrieval remains in place,” the statement said. “Egg fertilization and embryo development is paused.”
In response to a question, a spokesperson for the health system said that embryo implantation procedures, the final part of the I.V.F. process, had also been paused.
The health system includes the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital, the largest hospital in the state and, according to its website, among the 20 “largest and best equipped” hospitals in the country.
The decision by U.A.B. comes just five days after the Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling saying that frozen embryos in test tubes should be considered children.
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, said that the ruling was going to cause “exactly the type of chaos that we expected when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and paved the way for politicians to dictate some of the most personal decisions families can make.”
From 2017 to 2019, 10 percent of American women ages 15 to 44 said they had received some form of fertility service, according to the Pew Research Center. In 2021, assisted reproductive technology, which includes I.V.F, accounted for 91,906 births in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In Alabama, 1,219 procedures using assisted reproductive technology were performed in 2021, according to the C.D.C. |
|
huskergal
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,435
|
Post by huskergal on Feb 22, 2024 1:25:58 GMT
I just want to ask the women of Alabama who are using IVF to get pregnant, how many of you voted for Republicans?
Also, I watched the national news tonight and some old lady was happy about the ban using the old "sanctity of life" statement. I want to ask those people how they feel about guns.
It is all so sick. I watch Handmaid's Tale knowing it is fiction. It is less and less fiction all the time.
|
|
huskergal
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,435
|
Post by huskergal on Feb 22, 2024 4:14:20 GMT
I just read a great post on X about this topic. Basically the person said they are moving to Alabama and putting 40 frozen embryos in their freezer and claiming all of them on their taxes.
|
|
dawnnikol
Prolific Pea
'A life without books is a life not lived.' Jay Kristoff
Posts: 8,555
Sept 21, 2015 18:39:25 GMT
|
Post by dawnnikol on Feb 22, 2024 12:09:57 GMT
Also, I watched the national news tonight and some old lady was happy about the ban using the old "sanctity of life" statement. I want to ask those people how they feel about guns. Kay Ivey makes sure the Alabama prisons are expanded and stocked full at all times. They also used Nitrogen Hypoxia to execute a man and are going for #2 soon. I guess God doesn't care if you murder people who commit crimes. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 22, 2024 13:24:10 GMT
Also, I watched the national news tonight and some old lady was happy about the ban using the old "sanctity of life" statement. I want to ask those people how they feel about guns. Kay Ivey makes sure the Alabama prisons are expanded and stocked full at all times. They also used Nitrogen Hypoxia to execute a man and are going for #2 soon. I guess God doesn't care if you murder people who commit crimes. Ivey is using Alabama's Federal Covid funds to build a new prison!! |
|
