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?
Jordan Reid
Author; Founding Editor, Ramshackle Glam
Commentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
Is the US looking for a war?
7 hrs ago
Peter Zeihan
How future generations could shift US support for Israel
Yesterday
Peter Zeihan
Why election of European Commission president is so important
Wednesday
Peter Zeihan
‘Both completely corrupt’: What Americans think of Biden, Trump
Tuesday
Dr. Frank Luntz
Alabama ruling destroys IVF and is not ‘pro-life’
Jordan Reid
Author; Founding Editor, Ramshackle Glam
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?
Americans must reject Trump to defend our democracy
At the end of the Republican National Convention, Donald Trump accepted the nomination as the GOP candidate for president. In the first part of his acceptance speech, Trump called for unity and healing, although he derailed into partisanship as he continued. Critics have debated the media’s role in handling Trump’s speech. Some argued he was…
Yesterday
It’s time for Kamala Harris to pick up the torch
Debates have continued among Democrats about whether President Joe Biden is the best candidate for the 2024 election or whether an alternative Democratic leader might be more electable. While there’s no shortage of fellow Democratic leaders to choose from, President Biden and his supporters have continued to assert that Biden can and will win as…
Jul 18
Republicans want to sabotage US education
Former President Donald Trump’s official educational policy platform reveals plans to eliminate the Department of Education and seize the financial assets and endowments of elite U.S. universities. These proposals and others have convinced some liberal critics that the true goal of Republicans is to intentionally weaken U.S. education. Watch the above video as Straight Arrow…
Jul 11
Despite poor debate performance, Biden deserves our support
President Joe Biden himself admits that he delivered a “bad” performance in the first 2024 presidential debate. About a week after what some consider to be the worst debate performance in the history of televised debates, polls indicate that more voters than ever have an unfavorable opinion of the president, believe he is too old…
Jul 5
The modern-day Republican woman has terrifying role models
In a recent New York Magazine cover story entitled, “How Did Republican Women End Up Like This,” Rebecca Traister writes about some of the more polarizing examples of female Republican leaders and their positions on abortion, the transgender movement and women in general. With Republican women set to play a major role in the November…
Jun 27
Underreported stories from each side
Group accuses Pa. teachers union of illegally using money to back Shapiro’s 2022 campaign
8 sources | 0% from the left
Getty Images
Some House Republicans slam Vance as Trump’s VP pick: ‘The worst choice’
8 sources | 0% from the right
Reuters
Latest Stories
Congress still trying to figure out how to reduce wasteful military spending
Watch 2:29
2 hrs ago
US Navy, Air Force making waves with new weapons at RIMPAC
Watch 6:03
2 hrs ago
Israeli PM Netanyahu meets with Trump at Mar-a-Lago
Watch 2:54
3 hrs ago
Growing US nuclear power resurgence reaches the nation’s heartland
Watch 1:19
3 hrs ago
Beer from the sun, other solar thermal projects get government funding
Watch 2:04
3 hrs ago
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
Trump has an excellent opportunity with Black voters
8 hrs ago
Star Parker
Don’t fall for GOP’s cheap racist attacks on Kamala Harris
9 hrs ago
Dr. Rashad Richey
Americans must reject Trump to defend our democracy
Yesterday
Jordan Reid
Why all the changes in European parliamentary governments?
Wednesday
Newt Gingrich