Alabama Supreme Court IVF Embryos Ruling: Read It For Yourself

Photo by DrKontogianniIVF via Wikimedia Commons

The Supreme Court of Alabama has reversed a trial court decision in a wrongful death suit, ruling that a frozen human embryo meant for IVF is a “child” for “the purposes of Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act” and thus protected by that state’s Sanctity of Life Amendment.

Read the Alabama Supreme Court IVF Embryos Ruling for yourself here:

1819 News:

In a case originating from Mobile, LePage v. Mobile Infirmary Clinic, Inc., the Supreme Court held in a 7-2 decision that parents of frozen embryos killed at an IVF clinic when an intruder tampered with an IVF freezer may proceed with a wrongful death lawsuit against the clinic for alleged negligence.

The Court also held that the Alabama Constitution’s Sanctity of Life Amendment, ratified by Alabama voters and made law in 2018, would require the Court to interpret the law in favor of protecting the unborn. Alabama’s Sanctity of Life Amendment declares in the state Constitution that it is “the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.”

Alabama Supreme Court Associate Justice Jay Mitchell wrote the majority’s opinion and said, “This Court has long held that unborn children are “children” for purposes of Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.”

“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.”

Alabama Associate Justice Greg Cook wrote in his dissenting opinion that the “main opinion’s holding almost certainly ends the creation of frozen embryos through in vitro fertilization (“IVF”) in Alabama.”

“I respectfully dissent,” Cook said. “The first question that this Court is being asked to decide in these appeals is whether Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act (“the Wrongful Death Act”), see § 6-5-391, Ala. Code 1975, as passed by our Legislature, provides a civil cause of action for money damages for the loss of frozen embryos. This is a question of the meaning of the words in that Act, as it was originally passed and understood in 1872. My sympathy with the plaintiffs and my deeply held personal views on the sanctity of life cannot change the meaning of words enacted by our elected Legislature in 1872. Even when the facts of a case concern profoundly difficult moral questions, our Court must stay within the bounds of our judicial role. Moreover, there are other significant reasons to be concerned about the main opinion’s holding. No court — anywhere in the country — has reached the conclusion the main opinion reaches. And, the main opinion’s holding almost certainly ends the creation of frozen embryos through in vitro fertilization (“IVF”) in Alabama.”