The Supreme Court of Alabama recently decided that couples who were undergoing in vitro fertilization and experienced the loss of frozen embryos due to an accident at a storage facility in southern Alabama have the right to file a lawsuit under the state’s wrongful death statute.

Afterward, three providers have temporarily stopped offering fertility treatments due to legal considerations.

This decision is unprecedented and expands a belief held by certain anti-abortion organizations, that embryos and fetuses should be treated as children and granted legal protections, to a new area.

Although the ruling was limited, certain legal experts believe it could have broader implications.

“Let’s examine some inquiries and responses regarding the potential implications of the decision.”

The highest court in Alabama ruled that three couples from Alabama have the right to file a lawsuit against a fertility clinic and hospital for the death of their frozen embryos stored at a facility which were lost in an accident. This is considered a wrongful death of a child.

The justices overturned a previous decision by a lower court which had dismissed the wrongful death lawsuit due to the argument that the embryos were not considered individuals or children.

The court had previously determined that couples were allowed to file a lawsuit if a fetus was lost during pregnancy. However, the court recently expanded this ruling to include “extrauterine children” under the wrongful death law. In the opinion written by Justice Jay Mitchell, it was stated that unborn children are considered children under the Act, regardless of their stage of development, physical location, or any other characteristics.

The court placed significant emphasis on the phrasing of the statute for wrongful death as well as the addition of language to the 2018 Alabama Constitution that affirms protection for “unborn children.”

According to Mary Ziegler, who holds the position of Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law, the Alabama ruling did not fully equate embryos with people in terms of legal rights, at least not at this time.

Ziegler stated that the court did not explicitly state whether fetuses or embryos have constitutional rights. They simply acknowledged them as persons or children for the application of the wrongful death law.

Nevertheless, she stated that the ruling of the court could potentially have a broader interpretation.

Ziegler stated that individuals in Alabama are justifiably anticipating that this is only the beginning, and the verdict will result in further consequences in the future.

Three in vitro fertilization (IVF) facilities in the state have declared a temporary halt to their IVF services while they address the recent ruling. A different clinic stated that it plans to still offer IVF services, but may make modifications to patient consent forms and potentially other aspects.

Individuals seeking treatment at clinics that have temporarily suspended IVF services rushed to locate alternative options.

Currently, it is uncertain what the legal and practical consequences will be following the decision made by the Alabama Supreme Court.

According to Greer Donley, a faculty member at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, clinics will likely provide IVF services in Alabama, but may opt not to store embryos within the state in the future.

Transferring them to another location could potentially complicate the process by adding logistical challenges, expenses, and potential risks.

Legal experts anticipate an increase in lawsuits regarding rights for embryos.

Last week’s verdict may have been the ultimate decision in this Alabama case.

Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court can be made for state supreme court cases, but only if they are based on the U.S. Constitution.

This decision heavily relies on the Alabama Constitution, which acknowledges the rights of the “unborn.”

State Senator Tim Melson, a member of the Republican party, has announced his plans to introduce a bill that would safeguard IVF services within the state. As a medical professional himself, Melson stated that the bill aims to establish legal protection for fertilized eggs once they have been implanted in the uterus, rather than beforehand.

“I’m just trying to come up with a solution for the IVF industry and protect the doctors and still make it available for people who have fertility issues that need to be addressed because they want to have a family,” Melson said.

The speaker stated that the decision is a result of the wording in the Alabama Constitution, which states that it is the state’s policy to acknowledge the rights of the “unborn.”

Melson emphasized the importance of addressing the issue.

Unfortunately, that is not possible according to the current decision.

The Alabama lawsuit focuses on civil lawsuits for wrongful death, not criminal charges related to the death of embryos.

Professor Zeigler, an expert in law, stated that the decision only applied to the extent of the wrongful death law. “The court’s stance is that we will address at a future time the issue of whether an embryo possesses constitutional rights and if individuals can be charged with murder for causing the death of an embryo.”

At present, there is a possibility for them to be stored without a time limit. Numerous embryos often end up being stored for various reasons.

Prior to the Alabama decision, there was already a dilemma surrounding what to do with unimplanted embryos, particularly for individuals who utilized IVF to start a family.

Many individuals struggle with the decision to donate their embryos for research or have them discarded, and do not want to continue incurring storage fees. Currently, there are thousands of abandoned embryos left in clinic freezers.

The impact of the recent ruling is unclear, according to Rachel Rebouche, the dean of Temple University Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia. She mentioned that some employers may cover the cost of storing embryos for their employees.

“Does living in Alabama make this benefit irrelevant?” she inquired. “If you decide against implanting the embryos, will you face accusations of a tort?”

A particular group advocates for individuals who do not intend to utilize embryos for future pregnancies to engage in what they refer to as “compassionate transfer.” This involves implanting the embryos into women’s uteruses during a time when pregnancy is not expected to happen.

This article was contributed to by Geoff Mulvihill, a reporter for the Associated Press in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.