Alabama Supreme Court rules that frozen embryos are children under state law and subject to legislation dealing with wrongful death of minor.
IVF patients whose frozen embryos were destroyed in December 2020 filed two lawsuits against the facility, alleging it had violated Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.
The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that frozen embryos are children under state law and subject to legislation dealing with the wrongful death of minor. The court issued this majority decision in a lawsuit brought forth by a group of IVF patients whose frozen embryos were destroyed in December 2020 when a patient removed the embryos from a cryogenic storage unit and dropped them on the ground. The plaintiffs subsequently filed two lawsuits against the facility, alleging that it had violated Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, which applies to unborn children.
The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are people and someone can be held liable for destroying them.
Federally, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this term whether to limit access to an abortion drug.
Accuracy
Alabama's Supreme Court has ruled that frozen embryos are children under state law
Frozen embryos would be protected under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that frozen embryos are people and someone can be held liable for destroying them. However, this statement contradicts the fact that embryos do not have personhood under the law until they implant into a uterus and develop into an individual with consciousness.
The court ruled that it had long held that unborn children are children and afforded fertilized eggs protection as babies under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. However, this ruling is not supported by scientific evidence or legal precedent.
The article states that frozen embryos are people and someone can be held liable for destroying them. However, this statement contradicts the fact that embryos do not have personhood under the law until they implant into a uterus and develop into an individual with consciousness.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when the author cites a ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court without providing any evidence or context for why this court's decision should be trusted over other courts. Additionally, there are multiple instances of inflammatory rhetoric used throughout the article, such as phrases like 'logical next step', 'natural extension', and 'deeply personal decision'. The author also uses a dichotomous depiction when describing how embryos can only be destroyed if they fit the definition of a child. This is not true in all cases, and it creates an unfair distinction between different types of embryos. Finally, there are several examples where the author misrepresents or exaggerates information to make their argument more persuasive.
The first-of-its-kind ruling comes as at least 11 states have broadly defined personhood as beginning at fertilization in their state laws
Abortion rights advocates say the ruling is the logical next step for the antiabortion movement
It could also make health care providers more reluctant to provide care and jeopardize the safety of embryos, as they might worry about inadvertently destroying an embryo
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff and he has a history of writing articles that are biased towards antiabortion rights. In this particular article, the author uses language that dehumanizes embryos by referring to them as 'unborn children' which implies they have personhood status. The author also quotes from an antiabortion activist who is trying to make it illegal to destroy embryos and cites a state in Tennessee where such legislation has been proposed but not passed. Additionally, the article mentions that Georgia now recognizes an 'unborn child' as a dependent after six weeks of pregnancy which further reinforces the idea that embryos have personhood status.
The article mentions Georgia recognizing an 'unborn child' as a dependent after six weeks of pregnancy
The author quotes from an antiabortion activist who is trying to make it illegal to destroy embryos
The author refers to frozen embryos as 'children'
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff has a conflict of interest on the topic of frozen embryos as he is an advocate for reproductive rights advocates and health-care providers. He also supports personhood which may influence his coverage of this issue.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff has a conflict of interest on the topic of frozen embryos as he is an advocate for reproductive rights advocates and health-care providers. He also supports IVF treatments which may be affected by this ruling.
Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that frozen embryos are children under state law
The ruling was made in a lawsuit brought forth by a group of IVF patients whose frozen embryos were destroyed in December 2020
A trial court found that a frozen embryo did not fall within the definition of 'person' or 'child'
Accuracy
Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are children
`Wrongful Death of a Minor Acta applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court without providing any context or evidence for their decision. This is a form of logical fallacy because it assumes that just because something was ruled upon by an authority figure, it must be true or correct. Additionally, the article contains inflammatory rhetoric when discussing the consequences of considering frozen embryos as children, such as making IVF substantially more expensive and preserving embryos more carefully. This is a form of logical fallacy because it assumes that these consequences are inherently negative without providing any evidence to support this claim.
The court issued this majority decision in a lawsuit brought forth by a group of in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients whose frozen embryos were destroyed in December 2020 when a patient removed the embryos from a cryogenic storage unit and dropped them on the ground. The plaintiffs subsequently filed two lawsuits against the facility, alleging that it had violated Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.
The defendants argued that considering frozen embryos as children would result in numerous consequences, including making IVF substantially more expensive and preserving embryos more carefully. This is an inflammatory statement without providing any evidence to support this claim.
Bias
(85%)
The author uses language that dehumanizes embryos by referring to them as 'children' and stating that they are subject to legislation dealing with the wrongful death of minor. This is an example of religious bias as it implies a moral judgment on the value of life based on religion.
Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that frozen embryos are children under state law
The court issued this majority decision in a lawsuit brought forth by a group of in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients whose frozen embryos were destroyed
the plaintiffs subsequently filed two lawsuits against the facility, the Center for Reproductive Medicine, alleging that the clinic had violated Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Joseph Choi has a conflict of interest on the topic of frozen embryos as he is affiliated with Center for Reproductive Medicine which provides IVF services and may have financial ties to companies in the reproductive medicine industry.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Joseph Choi has a conflict of interest on the topic of frozen embryos as he is affiliated with Center for Reproductive Medicine which may have an interest in this issue.
The Alabama Supreme Court decided that embryos created through in-vitro fertilization would be protected under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act
Alabama's Supreme Court has ruled that frozen embryos are children under state law
The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are children
Accuracy
`It is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life` according to Alabama's Sanctity of Life Amendment, ratified in 2018
Deception
(80%)
The author uses the Bible as a justification for their ruling in this article. The use of religious text to support legal decisions is deceptive because it implies that the law is based on moral or ethical principles rather than facts and evidence.
We believe that each human being, from the moment of conception, is made in the image of God, created by Him to reflect His likeness. It is as if the People of Alabama took what was once a mere idea and turned it into law.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author of the article cites a verse from the Bible to justify their stance on embryos created through in-vitro fertilization. This is an example of an appeal to authority fallacy as they are using religious text without providing any evidence or logical reasoning for why this specific verse should be used in this context.
Bias
(85%)
The author uses the Bible as reasoning for functionally killing IVF access within an aggressively pro-life state. The author cites a verse from Jeremiah 1:5 to support their argument that each human being is made in the image of God and created by Him to reflect His likeness.
We believe that each human being, from the moment of conception, is made in the image of God, created by Him to reflect His likeness.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author of the article has multiple conflicts of interest related to the topics provided. The author is a member of an organization that opposes abortion and supports embryonic personhood, which could influence their coverage on these issues.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has multiple conflicts of interest on the topics provided. The article discusses the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling that embryos created through in-vitro fertilization are not children and do not have rights under state law. This ruling is based on a religious belief in the sanctity of unborn life, which may be controversial for some readers. Additionally, the author cites Jeremiah 1:5 as evidence for this belief, further emphasizing their personal beliefs.
Additionally, the author cites Jeremiah 1:5 as evidence for this belief, further emphasizing their personal beliefs.
The article discusses the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling that embryos created through in-vitro fertilization are not children and do not have rights under state law. This ruling is based on a religious belief in the sanctity of unborn life, which may be controversial for some readers.
The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are children
Alabama's Supreme Court has ruled that frozen embryos are children under state law
The Alabama Supreme Court decided that embryos created through in-vitro fertilization would be protected under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act
Accuracy
`Wrongful Death of a Minor Act` applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation
aSection 36.27ⰺ in the Alabama Constitution recognizes that unborn human life bears the image of God and cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God
Alabama has a total abortion ban which went into effect after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court with the Dobbs decision in June 2022
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses a loaded term 'children' to describe frozen embryos which are not children as they have no consciousness or ability to experience life. Secondly, the ruling implies that fertility treatments such as IVF could be banned due to wrongful death liability for any leftover eggs discarded after implantation. This is a false implication and misrepresentation of the law which only applies in cases where embryos are destroyed without consent or negligence. Lastly, the author uses religious arguments from the Alabama Constitution Section 36.06 to justify their ruling, but this argument does not apply as it was written before IVF treatments were available and therefore cannot be used to determine legal rights for fertility patients.
The article states that frozen embryos are children which is a false statement.
The author implies that wrongful death liability could lead to the banning of fertility treatments such as IVF, but this is not true according to law.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling without providing any evidence or reasoning for their decision. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when they describe the potential consequences of this ruling on fertility treatments as 'harmful'. They also use a dichotomous depiction when they state that each person was made in God's image and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.
The Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday that frozen embryos are children, which pro-choice rights groups have warned could have dangerous implications for fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization.
The ruling means that the couple can sue for wrongful death.
Bias
(85%)
The author uses religious language and references to the Alabama Constitution's Section 36.06 to argue that frozen embryos are children and should be protected by law. The ruling also implies that fertility treatments like IVF could face increased legal exposure if this decision is upheld, which would have a detrimental impact on these treatments in Alabama.
Section 36.06 recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life
The increased risk of legal exposure might result in Alabama's fertility clinics shutting down and fertility specialists moving to other states to practice fertility medicine.
The ruling means that the couple can sue for wrongful death.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of frozen embryos as they are an employee at a fertility clinic and hospital that was sued for wrongful death. The article also mentions the Medical Association of Alabama which may have ties to this issue.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of frozen embryos as they are suing an Alabama fertility clinic and hospital for the wrongful death of their frozen embryos. The article also mentions that the ruling was riddled with theology.
