Let’s talk about the term pro-life. Because I’m just not sure we’re all on the same page about what exactly it means. I mean, I would call myself pro-life. As an example, I am pro-lifesaving health care for pregnant women. I am pro-people, women included, being afforded the agency to live their lives as they see fit. I know it’s just revolutionary. We all knew that the Dobbs decision would have far-reaching consequences for women’s health care, which, yes, does include abortion. And now we have one of what I will imagine be many, many, many examples of just how far our government is willing to go to control women’s bodies.
In the state of Alabama, which already has some of the nation’s strictest abortion laws, the Supreme Court recently ruled that frozen embryos, you know the ones that are used during in vitro fertilization treatments that give thousands of people across the nation every year the chance to become parents, well, they ruled that those frozen embryos are people and cannot be destroyed. Specifically, they held that “unborn children are children.” No. And that frozen embryos should be given the same protections as babies under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.
This is all under the umbrella of the personhood movement, which holds that fetuses or, I guess, embryos, should be granted legal rights at virtually the moment of conception.
The problem is the creation of multiple embryos, more than you need, not all of which are expected to be viable, is how IVF works. The excess embryos are kept for some designated amount of time. And then they’re either destroyed per the couple’s wishes or they’re used in medical research, which is okay, because they’re essentially petri dishes. But if said embryos are granted personhood, and cannot be destroyed, that means I don’t know what that means. I guess that means they remain in storage forever. That’s problematic for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is very expensive to store embryos. And this will certainly both raise IVF prices to an exorbitant level and also leave parents and healthcare providers deeply reluctant to even consider the process, lest they be held liable for, I don’t know, manslaughter.
Again, multiple embryos are needed if there has to be a decent chance of a successful IVF pregnancy. If doctors don’t want to retrieve multiple eggs out of fear of liability, women seeking IVF will necessarily have less successful outcomes. Pro-life!
The other problem is like, I’m sorry, there are just so many problems. But okay, say you have some frozen embryos in storage. And then you get divorced. And say your settlement agreement states that those shared embryos should be destroyed. But now that’s illegal. Let’s say then your ex sues for custody of those embryos and then all of a sudden, you are forced into parenthood with a person you specifically chose not to become a parent with against your will. All of the legal issues raised by the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision are intensely complicated, but all of them beg the same question: Whose lives exactly are we pro?
Related
Jordan Reid
Author; Founding Editor, Ramshackle Glam
View Video LibraryCommentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
Why interest rates will be higher for longer
Friday
Peter Zeihan
‘The worst it’s ever been’: Young Americans on democracy
Thursday
Dr. Frank Luntz
How to handle plunging US birth rate before it’s too late
Thursday
Peter Zeihan
Japan must confront reality of military threats
Wednesday
Peter Zeihan
Alabama ruling destroys IVF and is not ‘pro-life’
Feb 29
By Straight Arrow News
On Friday, Feb. 16, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled frozen embryos should have some of the same legal protections as human children. The ruling has severe implications for in vitro fertilization (IVF), which freezes and uses embryos to help women become pregnant. Alabama Chief Justice Tom Parker, citing the Book of Genesis, argued that IVF is an affront to God, and Republicans in the Senate have already blocked a Democratic attempt to protect the IVF process after the ruling.
Straight Arrow News contributor Jordan Reid explains the IVF process, why it’s important, and why she believes it must be protected. She also wonders what the term “pro-life” really means after the Alabama ruling.
Let’s talk about the term “pro-life.” Because I’m just not sure we’re all on the same page about what exactly it means. I mean, I would call myself “pro-life.” As an example, I am pro-lifesaving health care for pregnant women. I am pro-people, women included, being afforded the agency to live their lives as they see fit. I know. It’s just revolutionary.
We all knew that the Dobbs decision would have far-reaching consequences for women’s health care, which, yes, does include abortion. And now we have one of what I will imagine be many, many, many examples of just how far our government is willing to go to control women’s bodies.
In the state of Alabama, which already has some of the nation’s strictest abortion laws, the Supreme Court recently ruled that frozen embryos — you know the ones that are used during in vitro fertilization treatments that give thousands of people across the nation every year the chance to become parents — well, they ruled that those frozen embryos are people and cannot be destroyed. Specifically, they held that “unborn children are children.” No. And that frozen embryos should be given the same protections as babies under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.
This is all under the umbrella of the personhood movement, which holds that fetuses or, I guess, embryos, should be granted legal rights at virtually the moment of conception.
Let’s talk about the term pro-life. Because I’m just not sure we’re all on the same page about what exactly it means. I mean, I would call myself pro-life. As an example, I am pro-lifesaving health care for pregnant women. I am pro-people, women included, being afforded the agency to live their lives as they see fit. I know it’s just revolutionary. We all knew that the Dobbs decision would have far-reaching consequences for women’s health care, which, yes, does include abortion. And now we have one of what I will imagine be many, many, many examples of just how far our government is willing to go to control women’s bodies.
In the state of Alabama, which already has some of the nation’s strictest abortion laws, the Supreme Court recently ruled that frozen embryos, you know the ones that are used during in vitro fertilization treatments that give thousands of people across the nation every year the chance to become parents, well, they ruled that those frozen embryos are people and cannot be destroyed. Specifically, they held that “unborn children are children.” No. And that frozen embryos should be given the same protections as babies under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.
This is all under the umbrella of the personhood movement, which holds that fetuses or, I guess, embryos, should be granted legal rights at virtually the moment of conception.
The problem is the creation of multiple embryos, more than you need, not all of which are expected to be viable, is how IVF works. The excess embryos are kept for some designated amount of time. And then they’re either destroyed per the couple’s wishes or they’re used in medical research, which is okay, because they’re essentially petri dishes. But if said embryos are granted personhood, and cannot be destroyed, that means I don’t know what that means. I guess that means they remain in storage forever. That’s problematic for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is very expensive to store embryos. And this will certainly both raise IVF prices to an exorbitant level and also leave parents and healthcare providers deeply reluctant to even consider the process, lest they be held liable for, I don’t know, manslaughter.
Again, multiple embryos are needed if there has to be a decent chance of a successful IVF pregnancy. If doctors don’t want to retrieve multiple eggs out of fear of liability, women seeking IVF will necessarily have less successful outcomes. Pro-life!
The other problem is like, I’m sorry, there are just so many problems. But okay, say you have some frozen embryos in storage. And then you get divorced. And say your settlement agreement states that those shared embryos should be destroyed. But now that’s illegal. Let’s say then your ex sues for custody of those embryos and then all of a sudden, you are forced into parenthood with a person you specifically chose not to become a parent with against your will. All of the legal issues raised by the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision are intensely complicated, but all of them beg the same question: Whose lives exactly are we pro?
Related
Why the Trump family is missing from court appearances
Former President Donald Trump is currently attending his Manhattan trial as a defendant facing 34 charges of falsifying business records. Despite this ongoing legal fight, sightings of his family have been rare at the proceedings. While his adult son Eric made one appearance, none of his other children, nor his third wife Melania, have been…
Thursday
Careful Left, campus protests will end up benefiting Trump
Protests against the Israel-Hamas war have flared up at universities across the United States and around the world. Some universities resorted to calling the police to break up larger protests, leading to mass arrests at places like the University of Southern California and the use of tear gas in Florida, among others. At the University…
May 2
Portraying far-left and far-right as equal in ‘Civil War’ is wrong
The movie “Civil War,” which depicts Texas and California seceding from the nation to wage war on Washington, D.C., reflects a what-if scenario fueled by memories of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. But as the presidential election looms, discussions about civil war have moved beyond theoretical debates to become a serious consideration among some voters.…
Apr 25
Why I doubt Trump will be convicted in hush money case
Donald Trump is the first former president to face trial on criminal charges. In the first of potentially four trials, Trump entered a plea of not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records. These charges stem from a $130,000 payment made to the adult actress and stripper Stormy Daniels, which aimed to keep her…
Apr 18
Political comedy has a role to play in Gaza
Political comedians in the U.S. have sometimes struggled to cover the war in Gaza, which has been defined by tremendous human suffering and high political polarization, none of which seems particularly funny. Comedian Ramy Youssef attempted to tackle some of those issues in an opening monologue of a recent “Saturday Night Live” (SNL) episode. Straight…
Apr 11
Underreported stories from each side
Biden’s Israel weapons pause won’t dent Gaza protests, organizers say
15 sources | 11% from the left
USAF
World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5C target
13 sources | 0% from the right
Getty Images
Latest Stories
Chinese EV-maker Zeekr is coming to the US. Will Biden’s tariff hike stop it?
Watch 1:17
Friday
Anti-oil activists try to break into Magna Carta display
Watch 1:35
Friday
Charges dropped against 211 migrants who stormed border, DA appeals
Watch 1:30
Friday
Bumble founder: Future of dating could be one AI talking to another
Watch 2:39
Friday
VA school board votes to restore Confederate names changed in 2020
Watch 2:10
Friday
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
Biden withholding weapons from Israel emboldens Hamas
Friday
Star Parker
Donald Trump has betrayed every conservative value
Friday
Dr. Rashad Richey
Putin’s promise of a long war might be hollow threat
Thursday
Leon Aron
Why the Trump family is missing from court appearances
Thursday
Jordan Reid