Right now there is a big kerfuffle about restrictions related to IVFertilization in Alabama, and several high-level politicians have said
they want to undo the current problem.

But I expect they will dither around for months or years before they
come up with the right set of rules to solve the problem. During which
time the plans of scores of women and their husbands will be screwed up,
some of whom iiuc are in the middle of the procedure right now.

OTOH, could they not, tomorrow, pass a law that says, "Nothing in [the
trigger law that is the issue now] will apply to IVF until Sept 1, 2024,
and no prosecution or civil suit based on [that law] shall be based on
actions related to IVF that occur before Sept 1. 2024." ?? That's all
it has to say. Easy to debate, easy to pass.

Six months, or 3 months, ought to be enough time to iron out details.

It was all legal until last week so suspending prosecutions and civil
suits just puts them back to where they were last week.

How long do you think it will take them to remedy the problem? I hear
that 85% of even evangelicals like IVF and they want it back. Are the politicians who say they agree being truthful, or just trying to make it through the election without actually fixing things.

--
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]>:

OTOH, could they not, tomorrow, pass a law that says, "Nothing in [the >trigger law that is the issue now] will apply to IVF until Sept 1, 2024,
and no prosecution or civil suit based on [that law] shall be based on >actions related to IVF that occur before Sept 1. 2024." ?? That's all
it has to say. Easy to debate, easy to pass.

Keeping in mind that the chief justice of the Alabama supreme court
ruled that fertilized eggs are people, and said that is because God
told him so, I would expect the court to invalidate any workarounds.

Even in Alabama, you can't kill innocent people. You can only kill
people who have been convicted on flimsy evidence, defended by
overworked and often incompetent counsel, and are, you know, that kind
of person. And then you have to suffocate them with nitrogen, not by
taking them out of the freezer.

--
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)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:15:21 -0800 (PST), "John Levine" <[email protected]> wrote:

According to micky <[email protected]>:

OTOH, could they not, tomorrow, pass a law that says, "Nothing in [the >>trigger law that is the issue now] will apply to IVF until Sept 1, 2024, >>and no prosecution or civil suit based on [that law] shall be based on >>actions related to IVF that occur before Sept 1. 2024." ?? That's all
it has to say. Easy to debate, easy to pass.

Keeping in mind that the chief justice of the Alabama supreme court
ruled that fertilized eggs are people, and said that is because God
told him so, I would expect the court to invalidate any workarounds.

Even in Alabama, you can't kill innocent people. You can only kill
people who have been convicted on flimsy evidence, defended by
overworked and often incompetent counsel, and are, you know, that kind
of person. And then you have to suffocate them with nitrogen, not by
taking them out of the freezer.

You have a point.

But I was, at least in this case, overly cynical about the time it would
take them to do something.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4493808-alabama-senate-house-propose-bills-to-protect-ivf-providers/
State Sen. Tim Melson (R) introduced new legislation in the state
Senate. Senate Bill 159 aims to provide �civil and criminal immunity to
persons providing goods and services related to in vitro fertilization
except acts of omission that are intentional and not arising from or
related to IVF services.�

State Rep. Terri Collins (R) introduced a companion bill in the House. Collins�s bill is retroactive and would automatically repeal on June 1,
2025, while Melson�s would repeal on April 1, 2025.

[Not sure what they mean by repeal. No longer be in effect, I suppose,
as I suggested. So do they plan to use the year to come up with
something, something less strong, less inclusive, than this, I would
expect.]

And this article doesn't have it but on CNN last night. I came in in the middle, but I heard a Democrat who has introduced a bill that says
embryos are not children. He criticized the other two bills as not
getting to the heart of the problem. He said his bill could be heard in committee as early as Tuesday.

This is not the same as passing the bill today, which I still think they
could and should do, but it's also not, NOT YET, dithering for weeks or
months while people are in mid-plan. We shall see how long they actually
dither but they are off to a fairly good start.

--
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)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 11:12:56 -0800 (PST), micky <[email protected]> wrote:

In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 27 Feb 2024 13:15:21 -0800 (PST), "John >Levine" <[email protected]> wrote:

According to micky <[email protected]>:

OTOH, could they not, tomorrow, pass a law that says, "Nothing in [the >>>trigger law that is the issue now] will apply to IVF until Sept 1, 2024, >>>and no prosecution or civil suit based on [that law] shall be based on >>>actions related to IVF that occur before Sept 1. 2024." ?? That's all >>>it has to say. Easy to debate, easy to pass.

Keeping in mind that the chief justice of the Alabama supreme court
ruled that fertilized eggs are people, and said that is because God
told him so, I would expect the court to invalidate any workarounds.

Even in Alabama, you can't kill innocent people. You can only kill
people who have been convicted on flimsy evidence, defended by
overworked and often incompetent counsel, and are, you know, that kind
of person. And then you have to suffocate them with nitrogen, not by
taking them out of the freezer.

You have a point.

But I was, at least in this case, overly cynical about the time it would
take them to do something.

It took them from Feb 16 to March 6, 19 days counting Feb 29th. I
guess that is fairly quick by legislative standards, but it's not the
one day I recommended. Maybe it's my fault for not writing them with my suggestion.

Yes, the fix may go back to their courts and be overturned, but by the
time it takes to reach the ASCourt, people can make other plans, move
out of state for some. There was at least one case where they wanted
their embryos to take them to another state and the storage place
wouldn't even do that. I wonder what their contract said. Most times
people just sign releases with doctors and afaik the doctors and labs
don't promise anything, like giving up the embryos when asked. If I
were the parents, I'd take them now before the new law is challenged.

Although the old law was only challenged because AIUI, someone dropped a
tray of embryos and they died, and the parents sued the lab or storage
facility for negligence. Surely the lawsuit or allegation wasn't for manslaughter? But somehow it went from a property claim that I assume
it was, to the Feb 16 ruling.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4493808-alabama-senate-house-propose-bills-to-protect-ivf-providers/
State Sen. Tim Melson (R) introduced new legislation in the state
Senate. Senate Bill 159 aims to provide �civil and criminal immunity to >persons providing goods and services related to in vitro fertilization
except acts of omission that are intentional and not arising from or
related to IVF services.�

State Rep. Terri Collins (R) introduced a companion bill in the House. >Collins�s bill is retroactive and would automatically repeal on June 1,
2025, while Melson�s would repeal on April 1, 2025.

[Not sure what they mean by repeal. No longer be in effect, I suppose,
as I suggested. So do they plan to use the year to come up with
something, something less strong, less inclusive, than this, I would
expect.]

And this article doesn't have it but on CNN last night. I came in in the >middle, but I heard a Democrat who has introduced a bill that says
embryos are not children. He criticized the other two bills as not
getting to the heart of the problem. He said his bill could be heard in >committee as early as Tuesday.

This is not the same as passing the bill today, which I still think they >could and should do, but it's also not, NOT YET, dithering for weeks or >months while people are in mid-plan.

Well, I wouldn't call 19 days "dithering weeks or months", even though
it was over 2 weeks.

Those who complain it didn't get to the root of the problem should
realize the legislature might not be able to do that, even if it wanted
to, and it doesn't want to, doesnt' want to legalize abortion in
general.

We shall see how long they actually
dither but they are off to a fairly good start.

--
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)