5 ms·

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 th

by 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
    https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2021/11/frozen-embryos-not-persons-under-the-law-alabama-fertility-clinic-argues-in-bid-to-dismiss-wrongful-death-suit.html https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2021/11/frozen-embryos-not-pe... The defense was arguing that frozen non-implanted embryos are not “children”, not just unborn.
    - LeafItAlone 3y ago
      And here’s the opinion, in case you are still confused: 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
      From the ruling: The parties to these cases have raised many difficult questions, including ones about the ethical status of extrauterine children, the application of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution to such children, and the public-policy implications of treating extrauterine children as human beings. But the Court today need not address these questions because, as explained below, the relevant statutory text is clear: the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies on its face to all unborn children, without limitation. Under the defendants' test, even a full-term infant conceived through IVF and gestated to term would not qualify as a "child" or "person," because such a child would be "unborn" (having never been delivered from a biological womb). Unborn children are "children" under the Act, without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics. 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. As I have stated above this is a very narrow ruling. About born or unborn. And what’s more it doesn’t even rule in favor of the families. It upholds the dismissal of the case on other grounds. You are all trying to apply this to cases that they explicitly side stepped! The ONLY questioned answered by the court is: Does this law apply to unborn children? Nothing more.

by sph87 3y ago

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
  https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2021/11/frozen-embryos-not-persons-under-the-law-alabama-fertility-clinic-argues-in-bid-to-dismiss-wrongful-death-suit.html https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2021/11/frozen-embryos-not-pe... The defense was arguing that frozen non-implanted embryos are not “children”, not just unborn.
  - LeafItAlone 3y ago
    And here’s the opinion, in case you are still confused: 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
    From the ruling: The parties to these cases have raised many difficult questions, including ones about the ethical status of extrauterine children, the application of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution to such children, and the public-policy implications of treating extrauterine children as human beings. But the Court today need not address these questions because, as explained below, the relevant statutory text is clear: the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies on its face to all unborn children, without limitation. Under the defendants' test, even a full-term infant conceived through IVF and gestated to term would not qualify as a "child" or "person," because such a child would be "unborn" (having never been delivered from a biological womb). Unborn children are "children" under the Act, without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics. 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. As I have stated above this is a very narrow ruling. About born or unborn. And what’s more it doesn’t even rule in favor of the families. It upholds the dismissal of the case on other grounds. You are all trying to apply this to cases that they explicitly side stepped! The ONLY questioned answered by the court is: Does this law apply to unborn children? Nothing more.