Alabama Against IVF

And: Fani Willis' side piece hearing.

By and
348

Sarah and David dive into an Alabama Supreme Court case designating embryos as minors and explain how this might affect abortion policy at large.

The Agenda:
—Has Alabama banned in vitro fertilization (IVF)?
—Sarah’s experience with IVF
—The post-Roe world
—Climate scientist wins $1 million defamation case
—Fani Willis and Nathan Wade take the stand
—Donald Trump’s corporate death penalty
—AO advice column: marrying a lawyer

Show Notes:
—David Lat’s Original Jurisdiction

Today’s episode is supported by Burford Capital. Follow the link to learn more: http://burfordcapital.com/ao

By and
Comments (348)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Gsalas72

    The whole Fani Willis stuff is crazy.
    In the end, the defense of the Trump guys is claiming she organized the investigation and indicted 19 people so that she could hire his boyfriend who would then spend $3,500 in trips with her (that's the amount spelled out in the brief). Its just absurd.

    Collapse
  2. Scottjwoods

    I haven't heard anyone address the possibility of waiver. Why can't clinics just require the parents to waive their right to sue under the statute (possibly excepting negligence, if required by law) as a condition of treatment? The statute says a minor's "personal representative" can bring suit if the parents don't, but I understand that to refer to the representative of a minor's estate. I have a hard time believing they could get, say, the state AG's office to count as "personal representatives" (but maybe I'm wrong). Thoughts?

    Collapse
  3. Duffytweedy

    Yikes, 344 comments by the time I muster the courage to comment? Somehow I doubt Sarah and David will be reading ALL of these. I'm an enormous fan, and an AO completist. I'm also from an era when you had
    to write actual letters to celebrities, so forgive me if my first online foray is weird.

    First off, never think you're getting too "nerdy" or in the weeds for your non-law listeners. Your education of people like me just on the issue of standing is an enormous public service, and I for one can't get enough of standing.

    I have one wish for AO: that you have on, or perhaps just consult, a serious Catholic philosopher / ethicist when reproductive questions arise. This goes back to a pre-Dobbs episode, when Sarah made some comment about how if you're against contraception (I think it was), you'd better be against hormone blockers because they're artificial too. I think I startled some squirrels as I was out on my walk with my airpods in and had to rant a little bit on that one.

    Now in this episode, you both say that the pro-life side just hasn't thought through the complications of IVF. Surely Ramesh or Katheryn Jean Lopez could dispel that idea? Catholics have centuries of deep thought and argument about... well, everything, but certainly everything to do with life. And ever since John Paul II at least, with his Theology of the Body, Catholics have had a modern, coherent way to think through every scientific and social advance, and have a lot to say about it. Including, per Sarah's comment, about whether it's licit to have sex when you know your uterine lining isn't fluffy (love the phraseology!).

    Not that you'd find the conclusions persuasive necessarily, but it's pretty rigorous and thoughtful stuff. It's been way too many years since I've read up on this I wouldn't be a good guide, but it shouldn't be hard finding the right people. Even Catholic Answers has stuff. Oo, Robert George would be an awesome guest in general, being a Catholic lawyer and a deep thinker. Or if you don't seek this stuff out, just know that one group at least has almost certainly thought through the implications.

    Discussing AO is an established part of my marital life now, as my wife too is an avid listener. Also, we're praying daily for Nancy.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Johnamurdock

    This was a sad listen. Sarah calls the opinion "dumb" and is clearly on a mission to defend IVF because of her personal experience. I would have liked to have heard David put up more of a defense, though he lays out the straightforward legal reasoning at the top well. Some discussion of the state's constitutional amendment favoring the unborn seemed warranted as well. Instead, Sarah drove the conversation in a "how do we right this wrong" direction. Even there too the concurring opinion of the Chief Justice (which looks like it was once written to be the majority opinion) is interesting as he surveys worldwide regulation of IVF. (How often do Alabama opinions laud both greater regulation and the laws of other nations on issues of life and death?) In short, the opinions are worth a read and far from dumb: https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/343D203A-B13D-463A-8176-C46E3AE4F695/docketentrydocuments/E3D95592-3CBE-4384-AFA6-063D4595AA1D

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Johnamurdock

      And there are actually two dissents on the key issue of the Wrongful Death Act.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    NashLives

    Looks like the AL state legislature is going to move on the IVF thing. Nature is healing?

    https://www.npr.org/2024/02/22/1233270447/alabama-lawmakers-move-to-protect-ivf-treatment

    Collapse
  6. Andrew.Wimer

    Lots of wise words about working, paying dues, and avoiding golden handcuffs. I'm a PR person at a non-profit law firm, Institute for Justice, and I work with a lot of lawyers who came from big law. They all gave up bigger pay, but none of them regret the move. They appreciate being able to help worthy clients who would never be able to afford lawyers and getting to argue big cases at a relatively young age. Personally, I traded a high-profile speechwriting job with ridiculous hours to come to IJ and never regretted it for a second. We're currently looking for attorneys in Washington and Austin and have a more academic job opening with our Center for Judicial Engagement. https://ij.org/careers/

    Collapse
  7. Larabeth78

    Sarah and David - I might have missed it, so forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall you discussing the Chief Justice of the Alabama Court’s concurrence where he wrote: “Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God.” It is appalling to me that any jurist would write like this. I’m wondering why you guys didn’t talk about it? It seems worthy of addressing.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      From what I’m reading now, even Republicans are scrambling to write legislation protecting IVF in Alabama. The reasoning being that a fertilized egg is NOT a person “outside of a uterus” according to one (though I think that statement is from the Dem). Just more evidence that it’s not about life, it’s about policing women’s bodies and pregnancies. Fertilized eggs are people! Because DNA and stuff! Well, not in THIS instance because yeah, okay ‘unique DNA’ but it’s not inside a woman soooo…”

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      Notice they don't answer you.

      These two NEVER take on these issues when conservatives do them.

      The fact is, we are MOST worried about the rise of right wing theocrats. Here we have a perfect example of what we are worried about, and they...ignore it.

      Keep that in mind whenever you feel that they are "fair".

      Collapse
      1. Austin from Atlanta

        Indeed - how telling that the podcast hosts did not respond to a comment on a 3-day old episode that is no longer the current episode. Given how these comment sections are usually overrun with their comments - so much so that I wish they'd give the listeners a turn to chime in - it's outright shocking. Don't bother with questions over whether this is a productive medium for covering the full context of how judicial opinions are written. Never mind the need to have some selectivity in topics to maintain a modicum of general interest for listeners. Do away with thoughts that the hosts only have so much time in a day and must make expected value considerations on the frequency with which they engage one-off requests on old content. NO! We will not have it. A conspiracy is afoot. Remember that the next time you're tempted to find something "reasonable."

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Scarlette Tarte

          A simple answer to a query in the comments section is all I ask. They don't do it. Whether it's on Thomas, or anything else near and dear to their conservative hearts, they don't engage on it.

          At some point, they may write a column with a passing reference to it. But Sarah, especially, will not ever seriously look at whether her sacred cows are really bad for America.

          Like the federalist society. No way will she ever be able to bring herself to say "Maybe Leo was wrong on many things".

          Collapse
          1. Austin from Atlanta

            If that is sincerely your wish, then I recommend two things: 1) accept that the vast majority of questions will go unanswered. That’s just reality - left, right, or center, they’re just not going to spend all day in the comments. I’ve seen them respond to leftward and rightward comments, but we’re talking probably 2% or less of comments get a response (maybe a lot less.)

            2) present yourself as someone coming from a place of curiosity and not looking for a comment board squabble. No pundit or analyst is going to get into a fruitless argument with a subscriber if they can help it. Foreclosing that they operate in good faith is going to hurt that mission more than help. I’ve seen you talking about how biased and disingenuous TD is on several articles. That’s your right, but it’s probably not going to attract engagement. TD is not so big that they aren’t vaguely aware of who the frequent posters are.

            Just some thoughts to take or leave. Fair or unfair, that’s how I think it works on most any site where authors engage (which is rare in the first place.)

            Collapse
  8. Jon Kirsch

    What a mind numbingly asinine decision by Alabama’s Supreme Court.

    While we wait for Alabama’s legislators to write a law that embraces basic common sense thousands of families will be harmed by this.

    The slippery slope here now seems clear. Ideologues in the pro-life movement continue to find new ways to make enemies and show an impressive level of extremism.

    I also have a few responses to anyone who would say just cavalierly “Well we just have to let Alabama’s legislature do its job.” Families will be irrevocably harmed by this. Children who would otherwise have been born will now never be born. The harm here will be ongoing and insidious even if Alabama’s legislators jumped on this and got something done in record time.

    Rulings like this undermine federalism and faith in our healthcare system too. I just can’t fathom a level of idiocy where society thinks it’s a great idea to micromanage and hyper-regulate the most intimate decisions imaginable, like having children - one of the most basic fundamental purposes of being human.

    Collapse
  9. PROMETHEUS

    There is no greater pro-life procedure than in vitro fertilization. It helps CREATE babies, where nature (and the Alabama GOD) are useless.

    But now the Alabama Supreme Court, beholden not to the people of Alabama but to religious fanaticism, has turned ANTI- life.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      PaulH

      The ASC interpreted the laws passed by the legislature as is the duty -- it is not at all clear that their interpretation is wrong. And, of course, the legislature (which is beholden to the people) can change those laws.

      Collapse
      1. PROMETHEUS

        The Chief Justice of the ASC wrote into the decision that the "face of God" exists in every artificially produced zygote through the IVF procedure.
        Do you, in view of the First Amendment, truly insist that this interpretation has a place in any Supreme Court decision in ANY state in the Union?

        Even as a theological observation it is wrong.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          PaulH

          uumm, I don't recall insisting (truly or not) anything about that statement. You must be confusing me with someone else.

          Collapse
          1. PROMETHEUS

            Nice deflection.
            I can sense Republicans avoiding comments in this way up and down the line.
            I dont blame you.

            Collapse
  10. Incognito

    Per Alabama. The chilling effect of the ruling is already happening as the first (of many?) IVF clinic closed because of the unsustainable legal risk they faced. I wouldn't be shocked if IVF is eventually forced out of state.

    I'm also curious, are there any criminal implications with existing laws now that the state Supreme Court ruled in this fashion?

    Collapse
Load More