A second medical provider in Alabama announced it would suspend its in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments on Thursday, just days after the state Supreme Court ruled for the first time that embryos belong to “children outside the womb.”
“Due to the legal risk to our clinic and embryologists, we have made the extremely difficult decision to proceed with a new IVF treatment,” the Alabama Fertility Center posted on its Instagram account. “We are contacting those who will be receiving treatment today.” to find solutions for the patients affected, and we are doing our best to remind lawmakers of the profound negative impact this ruling will have on women in Alabama.”
Dr. Michael C Allemand, a physician at the Alabama Fertility Center, said he and his partners are continuing to see patients. However, he said: “We will reserve anything that involves embryo management.”
Aleman said the hold would not affect stored embryos, adding that he was not sure how many patients in total would be affected. Since the decision was made, Alabama Fertility Centers has consulted with a group of legal and medical experts, he said.
“‘What are the risks?’ is really an operational question. We know there is civil liability, but is there criminal liability?” Allemand said. “We’re not going to provide substandard care. So we have to work with the partners and experts we’re working with to decide if that’s feasible, to design a system here and a practice that allows us to do that.”
The Alabama Fertility Center is at least the second IVF provider to announce it will suspend IVF procedures, after the University of Alabama at Birmingham said Wednesday it would suspend treatment following a court ruling. A spokesman for the university, the state’s largest health care provider, said the institution “is saddened that this will impact our patients trying to have babies through in vitro fertilization, but we must evaluate the potential for our patients and physicians to be Possibility of prosecution “to be subject to criminal penalties or to face punitive damages for following standards of care for IVF treatment.”
The Alabama Supreme Court ruling stems from two wrongful death lawsuits against IVF clinics after several people had their frozen embryos accidentally destroyed. The clinic disputed the lawsuits, arguing that Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act did not apply to frozen embryos, but the state Supreme Court ruled that the law did.
“The central issues raised in these joint appeals relate to the death of embryos held in cryogenic incubators and whether the bill contains an unwritten exception to the rule for extrauterine children (i.e. unborn children located outside the biological womb) where they were killed. time,” wrote Alabama Supreme Court Justice Jay Mitchell. “Under current express law, the answer to that question is no: minor wrongful death laws apply to all unborn children, regardless of where they live.”
The unanimous opinion written by Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker cited the Bible multiple times. “The principle itself—that human life is fundamentally different from other forms of life and cannot be deliberately taken away without just cause—can be traced back to the principle that human life must be “conformed to the image of God,” before quoting Genesis. ‘The creation of man.’ King James Version 1:27.
The Alabama ruling shocked the nation. IVF patients and advocates fiercely opposed the ruling, which they said did not address the huge practical implications of legally recognizing frozen embryos as persons. Doctors at the Alabama Fertility Center said earlier this week that the ruling could upend several steps in the IVF process.
Newsletter Promotion Post
The decision also incorporated the so-called “fetal personhood” principle into Alabama law. Establishing that embryos and fetuses are persons with full legal rights and protections is a long-standing goal of many in the anti-abortion movement. Abortion opponents also often oppose in vitro fertilization.
Gabrielle Goidel, a patient at the Alabama Fertility Center, is taking medications to prepare her body for egg retrieval. In a typical IVF process, after the eggs are retrieved, a specialist combines the eggs with sperm to create embryos. One or two of the embryos may then be transplanted into the patient, or they may be frozen for future use.
Godel’s understanding is that, as of now, she will be able to have egg retrievals but not embryo transfers.
“I wanted to transfer directly. I wasn’t doing this process to freeze my eggs, I was doing it to have a baby, to get pregnant,” Goedel said, adding that when she heard about the Alabama Fertility Center ,she cried. “My main concern was that I would have an egg retrieval and spend all this money freezing my eggs indefinitely.”
The case that prompted the Alabama Supreme Court ruling continues and will return to lower courts for further proceedings. According to Mitchell’s opinion, the fertility clinic defendants in the case could still make other legal arguments to protect themselves from liability. However, the state Supreme Court may be the last stop for this case because it involves state courts’ interpretation of state statutes and the Constitution and is therefore unlikely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
Aleman said he hopes people will contact lawmakers to share their thoughts on the impact of the ruling. The Alabama Fertility Center is currently working with national partners to unite people in the cause of protecting IVF.
“We are a fertility clinic. We are not going to organize rallies,” he said. “This is outside of our normal range.”
Nearly 1,000 babies were born in Alabama in 2021 using assisted reproductive technologies, including embryo transfers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
