7 ms·

It was a very narrow ruling regarding civil liability for wrongful death as it applies to the word “children”. Some insurance companies tried to say that these

by sph87 3y ago

It was a very narrow ruling regarding civil liability for wrongful death as it applies to the word “children”. Some insurance companies tried to say that these families had no financial recourse from embryos being destroyed because a certain law did not apply since they were not children. They explicitly state that this does not confer criminal liability due to different wording in the law. It also states that this does not negate waiver, estoppel or affirmative defenses. It also upholds the dismissal of the case due to lack of wantonness or negligence on the part of the defendants. This is the media blowing something up for click bait. To answer your questions in order: None. No. No.

matthewdgreen 3y ago
It seems like the specific case here is narrow, but the implications are quite broad. The case applies a broad 2018 "sanctity of life" Constitutional amendment to a specific question around IVF clinic liability, and finds that this amendment makes the clinics liable. It's very hard to believe this ruling won't have very serious implications for the IVF industry in Alabama, at a minimum. And when you've got State Supreme Court judges writing things like "It is as if the People of Alabama took what was spoken of the prophet Jeremiah and applied it to every unborn person in this state: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, Before you were born I sanctified you.’ Jeremiah 1:5,” there's every reason to believe that further exciting rulings could be expected from that court.
- sph87 3y ago
  Negative. The court actually upholds the lower courts dismissal of the case. It simply holds that the word “children” in a law written in the 1800s includes the unborn. That is that an insurance company can’t argue that because this thing wasn’t born, it’s not a child, and they are immune from liability. They cite partial birth mishap as one reason for that. Like if a doctor accidentally decapites a child during delivery, their insurance would still be liable. Or if a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer could be held financially liable for both. Had they ruled the other way, that would not be the case. The criminal statute had been updated in 2008 with different wording to clarify this matter. Again, very very narrow ruling. Experts in a field made a nuanced decision that the media is hyping for views.
  - sterlind 3y ago
    Considering an assembly of ~10 cells an "unborn child," to the point of allowing wrongful death suits, seems quite extreme to me. That's a far cry from accidentally decapitating a baby during delivery. Also, embryos are so early that the very mechanics of life are different. Embryos last decades in cold storage, good luck trying that with a fetus. They're not in a womb. They're not on a path to becoming babies until they're successfully implanted. These "experts" are straining the law far beyond any possible plain meaning or original intent.
    - sph87 3y ago
      Yeah man, I don’t disagree with any of that. But that is not what the ruling is about. The law, as it is written, only says “children”. This was a law written in the 1800s. It does not consider any of that. The defense said, “hey you should throw this out because that thing isn’t a child, it hasn’t been born yet. Also, even if it was a child, they signed waivers and accidents happen.” The court said, “you can’t just say this doesn’t count because it hasn’t been born yet, but your right about the other stuff. Case dismissed.” They did not rule on the number of cells that constitutes a child because that was not the argument. Here is the pseudocode: Defense: If(!born) then child = false Judge: Error Media: mind blown You: ‘If(cells <= 10) then child = false’ works on my machine Me: That’s not what caused the error
      - quantified 3y ago
        Yes, but the number of cells is somewhat relevant. Any unfertilized egg or misplaced sperm is an important fraction of a child. A single fertilized egg could be viewed as a child.
        sph87 3y ago
        The court did not rule on that. This specific law only says children. The defense said this case did not apply because these are embryos that had not been born. The court said that’s not a valid argument because the word children includes unborn children. For you to then say, ohh well these don’t meet the development criteria is a different argument entirely. That was not the test proposed by the defense. Had they said, this does not count because it doesn’t meet a cell count threshold, then that would be something the court did not rule on.
LeafItAlone 3y ago
> It also upholds the dismissal of the case due to lack of wantonness or negligence on the part of the defendants. It dismissed the claims, not the case. And because that point was made moot by ruling that extrauterine embryos are children. Page 23: https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/343D203A-B13D-463A-8176-C46E3AE4F695/docketentrydocuments/E3D95592-3CBE-4384-AFA6-063D4595AA1D https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-...
- sph87 3y ago
  Moot mean “open to discussion”. We reverse the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' wrongful death claims in both appeals (regarding the born/unborn). Because the plaintiffs' alternative negligence and wantonness claims are now moot (open for discussion), we affirm the trial court's dismissal of those claims on that basis.
  - LeafItAlone 3y ago
    It means that those claims don’t matter anymore because of the decision on another. Because of Decision A, Claim 2 doesn’t apply anymore. The negligence claim was a back up in case the court found that the embryos were not children. Because they were found to be children, the negligence claim was no longer relevant and therefore dismissed.
    - sph87 3y ago
      Here is the text of the law: (I paraphrased the recourse portion) If the death of a minor child is caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of any person, persons, or corporation, or the servants or agents of either then (people can sue) You need all three elements: 1) Death 2) Child 3) Wrongful Act/Neglience If 1 AND 2 AND 3 then ACTION Trial found 1 true, 2 and 3 false. Ala SC said actually 2 is true, but 3 is still false. Your reading makes no sense. “Yea its a child, so it doesn’t matter if there was negligence”. No. You need all 3. They said: “We find lower court was wrong, 2 is reversed and now true. Since this now makes clause 3 open to discussion, we affirm that they were right in saying 3 was false. As a result the case is dismissed.”
fzeroracer 3y ago
Only a day later and you were already proven wrong given that hospitals are pausing IVF at the behest of their lawyers.

by sph87 3y ago

matthewdgreen 3y ago

It seems like the specific case here is narrow, but the implications are quite broad. The case applies a broad 2018 "sanctity of life" Constitutional amendment to a specific question around IVF clinic liability, and finds that this amendment makes the clinics liable. It's very hard to believe this ruling won't have very serious implications for the IVF industry in Alabama, at a minimum. And when you've got State Supreme Court judges writing things like "It is as if the People of Alabama took what was spoken of the prophet Jeremiah and applied it to every unborn person in this state: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, Before you were born I sanctified you.’ Jeremiah 1:5,” there's every reason to believe that further exciting rulings could be expected from that court.

sph87 3y ago
Negative. The court actually upholds the lower courts dismissal of the case. It simply holds that the word “children” in a law written in the 1800s includes the unborn. That is that an insurance company can’t argue that because this thing wasn’t born, it’s not a child, and they are immune from liability. They cite partial birth mishap as one reason for that. Like if a doctor accidentally decapites a child during delivery, their insurance would still be liable. Or if a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer could be held financially liable for both. Had they ruled the other way, that would not be the case. The criminal statute had been updated in 2008 with different wording to clarify this matter. Again, very very narrow ruling. Experts in a field made a nuanced decision that the media is hyping for views.
- sterlind 3y ago
  Considering an assembly of ~10 cells an "unborn child," to the point of allowing wrongful death suits, seems quite extreme to me. That's a far cry from accidentally decapitating a baby during delivery. Also, embryos are so early that the very mechanics of life are different. Embryos last decades in cold storage, good luck trying that with a fetus. They're not in a womb. They're not on a path to becoming babies until they're successfully implanted. These "experts" are straining the law far beyond any possible plain meaning or original intent.
  - sph87 3y ago
    Yeah man, I don’t disagree with any of that. But that is not what the ruling is about. The law, as it is written, only says “children”. This was a law written in the 1800s. It does not consider any of that. The defense said, “hey you should throw this out because that thing isn’t a child, it hasn’t been born yet. Also, even if it was a child, they signed waivers and accidents happen.” The court said, “you can’t just say this doesn’t count because it hasn’t been born yet, but your right about the other stuff. Case dismissed.” They did not rule on the number of cells that constitutes a child because that was not the argument. Here is the pseudocode: Defense: If(!born) then child = false Judge: Error Media: mind blown You: ‘If(cells <= 10) then child = false’ works on my machine Me: That’s not what caused the error
    - quantified 3y ago
      Yes, but the number of cells is somewhat relevant. Any unfertilized egg or misplaced sperm is an important fraction of a child. A single fertilized egg could be viewed as a child.
      - sph87 3y ago
        The court did not rule on that. This specific law only says children. The defense said this case did not apply because these are embryos that had not been born. The court said that’s not a valid argument because the word children includes unborn children. For you to then say, ohh well these don’t meet the development criteria is a different argument entirely. That was not the test proposed by the defense. Had they said, this does not count because it doesn’t meet a cell count threshold, then that would be something the court did not rule on.

LeafItAlone 3y ago

> It also upholds the dismissal of the case due to lack of wantonness or negligence on the part of the defendants. It dismissed the claims, not the case. And because that point was made moot by ruling that extrauterine embryos are children. Page 23: https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/343D203A-B13D-463A-8176-C46E3AE4F695/docketentrydocuments/E3D95592-3CBE-4384-AFA6-063D4595AA1D https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-...

sph87 3y ago
Moot mean “open to discussion”. We reverse the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' wrongful death claims in both appeals (regarding the born/unborn). Because the plaintiffs' alternative negligence and wantonness claims are now moot (open for discussion), we affirm the trial court's dismissal of those claims on that basis.
- LeafItAlone 3y ago
  It means that those claims don’t matter anymore because of the decision on another. Because of Decision A, Claim 2 doesn’t apply anymore. The negligence claim was a back up in case the court found that the embryos were not children. Because they were found to be children, the negligence claim was no longer relevant and therefore dismissed.
  - sph87 3y ago
    Here is the text of the law: (I paraphrased the recourse portion) If the death of a minor child is caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of any person, persons, or corporation, or the servants or agents of either then (people can sue) You need all three elements: 1) Death 2) Child 3) Wrongful Act/Neglience If 1 AND 2 AND 3 then ACTION Trial found 1 true, 2 and 3 false. Ala SC said actually 2 is true, but 3 is still false. Your reading makes no sense. “Yea its a child, so it doesn’t matter if there was negligence”. No. You need all 3. They said: “We find lower court was wrong, 2 is reversed and now true. Since this now makes clause 3 open to discussion, we affirm that they were right in saying 3 was false. As a result the case is dismissed.”

fzeroracer 3y ago

Only a day later and you were already proven wrong given that hospitals are pausing IVF at the behest of their lawyers.