In the very recent court decision in Alabama about embryos,

They keep saying on the news that this may be the end of IVF in Alabama
and many states, but a) For some extra money, they could continue to
freeze the unused embryos for another 2 hundred years or until they
died, were no long viable, even though continuously frozen. IVF is
already so expensive that I don't think this would add many percent to
its cost, especially after they buy new, much bigger and more efficient freezers, or set up a consolidated storage area in northern Alaska, or
at the North Pole, where it might be cold enough alredy most of the
time.

b) the unused embryos could be given to couples who have the same
fertility problems, or worse, so that they can't even generate embryos
the way the donor couple did, or they don't have enough money to both
create the embryos and then implant them and pay for college.

Assuming there is some validity to either of my suggestions, does this
not substantially weaken any claim that the parents of the embryos would
have to challenge the Alabama court's ruling, in order to allow them to
be actively destroyed?

I can't remmeber any examples but aren't there many cases when the
presence of an alternative to what plaintiffs would prefer to do weakens
their cause of action?

Surely I'm not smarter than Alabama's*** lawyers and they will think of
all this too. ***Okay, given all that's happened in the last serveral
years, maybe I am but let's assume I'm not. .


Side comment: ISTM that no one should be as surprised as they seem to be
by this decision, because it flows directly and inevitably from the
trigger law passed there about 6 years ago.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to micky <[email protected]>:

In the very recent court decision in Alabama about embryos,

They keep saying on the news that this may be the end of IVF in Alabama
and many states, but a) For some extra money, they could continue to
freeze the unused embryos for another 2 hundred years or until they
died, were no long viable, even though continuously frozen. ...

As soon as some doctor tries to implant a frozen embryo and there is
any reason to imagine it became non-viable in the freezer, he's facing
Ol' Sparky. This law was not made by reasonable people and there is
less than no reason to imagine that it will be enforced reasonably.
IVF providers are taking the hint:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/a-second-alabama-ivf-provider-pauses-parts-of-its-program-after-court-ruling-on-frozen-embryos/ar-BB1iIzhn

Other people have pointed out a variety of other interesting
consequences. For any undocumented woman of childbearing age, if
there's a possibility that she might be pregnant, well, you can't
deport a citizen. She can use the carpool lane, too.

--
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)