LogFAQs > #978946842

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

LeCh0nk posted...

I'm guessing to discourage clinics from storing embryo's and force babymak- I mean women- to pump out babies the "natural" way, and basically ostracize non-babymak- I mean infertile women.

bigblu89 posted...

Assuming I read the article correctly

In this particular case, its so the owners of the frozen embryos can sue for wrongful death in a case where the embryos were tampered with and destroyed by someone not working at the clinic.

But this has slippery slope written all over it.

I was talking about the reasoning for the ruling given by the judge, which was essentially "you are asking us to create an exception to a law based on public policy concerns rather than dealing with that in the legislature." Not the reasoning behind the shitty law being made in the first place.

Finally, the defendants and their amicus devote large portions of their briefs to emphasizing undesirable public-policy outcomes that, they say, will arise if this Court does not create an exception to wrongful-death liability for extrauterine children. In particular, they assert that treating extrauterine children as "children" for purposes of wrongful-death liability will "substantially increase the cost of IVF in Alabama" and could make cryogenic preservation onerous, he added. While we appreciate the defendants' concerns, these types of policy-focused arguments belong before the Legislature, not this Court. Judges are required to conform our rulings "to the expressions of the legislature, to the letter of the statute," and to the Constitution, "without indulging a speculation, either upon the impolicy, or the hardship, of the law."
Mitchell continued, Here, the text of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act is sweeping and unqualified. It applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation. 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. That is especially true where, as here, the People of this State have adopted a Constitutional amendment directly aimed at stopping courts from excluding "unborn life" from legal protection.