LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine

Last updated
LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine
Seal of the Unified Judicial System of Alabama.svg
Court Supreme Court of Alabama
Full case name James LePage, Emily LePage, William Tripp Fonde, and Caroline Fonde v. The Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C. and Mobile Infirmary Association d/b/a Mobile Infirmary Medical Center
Verdict8-1 [1]
CitationSC-2022-0515
Court membership
Judges sitting Tom Parker, Greg Shaw, Alisa Kelli Wise, Tommy Bryan, Will Sellers, Sarah Hicks Stewart, Brady E. Mendheim Jr., Jay Mitchell, Greg Cook
Case opinions
Decision byMitchell, joined by Wise and Bryan
ConcurrenceParker; Shaw, joined by Stewart; Mendheim (in judgment)
Concur/dissentSellers (concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part)
DissentCook

James LePage, et al. v. The Center for Reproductive Medicine and Mobile Infirmary Association [a] is a 2024 Alabama Supreme Court case in which the court held that frozen embryos should be considered as living beings, allowing for in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics to be held liable for the accidental loss of embryos under Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor law.

Contents

The ruling was highly criticized from political speakers on both sides of the spectrum, particularly in the wake of the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court two years earlier. Several IVF clinics in the state suspended operations following the ruling.

Background

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a medical process used to help individuals or couples conceive a child when natural conception is difficult or not possible. It involves combining a woman’s eggs and a man’s sperm in a laboratory to create embryos outside the body. After the embryos develop to a certain stage, typically a few days, one or more are transferred into the woman’s uterus with the hope of achieving pregnancy. The remaining embryos may be frozen for future use, allowing for additional attempts at pregnancy without repeating the entire process.

Between 2013 and 2016, plaintiffs—three married couples—underwent IVF treatment at a clinic operated by the Center for Reproductive Medicine. There, the couples were able to produce several embryos in vitro. Some of those embryos were successfully implanted, and the others were kept in the Center's cryogenic nursery for future implantation. In 2020, a patient at the Center for Reproductive Medicine in Mobile, Alabama improperly accessed the cryogenic freezer where frozen embryos were stored, removing and dropping them on the floor after their hands suffered from cold burns. [3]

Lower court rulings

Four parents—James and Emily LePage and Felicia and Scott Aysenne—sued against the Center for Reproductive Medicine, with William Tripp and Caroline Fonde serving as plaintiffs in LePage's lawsuit. [4] Both suits asserted claims under Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The Center for Reproductive Medicine moved to dismiss the claims. The trial court granted those motions, explaining its view that "[t]he cryopreserved, in vitro embryos involved in this case do not fit within the definition of a 'person'" or "'child,'" and it therefore held that their loss could not give rise to a wrongful death claim. The Mobile Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendants. [4] [5]

Alabama Supreme Court

On February 20, 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the state's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act covered frozen embryos, which allowed the case to return to the lower court to be ruled on the liability of the defendants. [4] [6]

The ruling decision cited an 1872 Alabama state law that allowed for parents to sue over the death of a minor child, a right that applies to all unborn children regardless of their location. Therefore, if a frozen embryo is destroyed, those responsible could be sued under the Alabama Wrongful Death of a Minor law. [5] Justice Jay Mitchell wrote in the opinion that an unborn child is a child, without any exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other characteristics, concluding that nothing would therefore exclude unborn children located outside the uterus from the law. [7] [8] Mitchell's opinion also referenced a 2018 amendment to the state constitution, [9] arguing that its approval showed that "the public policy of this state [is] to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children." [6]

Chief Justice Tom Parker wrote a concurring opinion to the ruling, citing the Bible's Book of Jeremiah and Book of Genesis; the Sixth Commandment; the Manhattan Declaration; as well as Christian theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin. [10] [11] [12] [13] Parker stated:

In summary, the theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself. [10]

Alabama's Human Life Protection Act, which states that it is a felony for a doctor to perform any type of abortion, was discussed by Justice Brady E. Mendheim in an opinion concurring with the result of the ruling decision. [13] [14]

Impact

In vitro fertilization access

Following the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling, the University of Alabama at Birmingham announced that it was pausing in vitro fertilization treatments. [15] Two other IVF clinics also paused treatments following the ruling. [6] Alabama's attorney general Steve Marshall that he "has no intention of using the recent Alabama Supreme Court decision as a basis for prosecuting IVF families or providers." [16] The next day, an explosive device was detonated outside of Marshall's office in Montgomery, although no one was harmed in the incident. [17]

State lawmakers from both political parties reacted the same week to protect IVF. A bill with bipartisan support and backing from Alabama's governor Kay Ivey was introduced that "would provide that any fertilized human egg or human embryo that exists outside of a human uterus is not considered an unborn child or human being for any purpose under state law" and allow IVF clinics to proceed as normal. [18] [19] On February 29, 2024, the two houses of the Alabama legislature passed similar bills, stating "no action, suit, or criminal prosecution for the damage to or death of an embryo shall be brought or maintained against any individual or entity when providing or receiving goods or services related to in vitro fertilization." [20] Ivey signed the law on March 6, 2024, with two of the IVF clinics stating they will immediately resume services. [21]

At the federal level, a bill called the Access to Family Building Act was introduced in both houses of Congress in January 2024, which would override any state law so as to offer additional protections to IVF clinics. The bill's co-sponsor Senator Tammy Duckworth urged action on the bill in light of the Alabama court ruling. [18] However, Senate Republicans blocked the bill during voting on February 28, 2024. [22]

According to David Schultz, professor of law at University of Minnesota, this ruling cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, as the decision is solely an interpretation of Alabama state law. Schultz also argues that this ruling would have been possible prior to the overturning of federal abortion protection in the 2022 Dobbs decision, because it does not directly relate to abortion. [23]

2024 U.S. presidential election

The Alabama case was seen to have a potentially significant impact on the 2024 United States presidential election, following the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in the 2022 case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization . The Democratic party started to immediately add the issue of protecting IVF treatments to its campaign platform in addition to its fight to protect abortion and other women's rights. President Joe Biden condemned the ruling, stating it was only possible due to the decision from Dobbs and that "the disregard for women's ability to make these decisions for themselves and their families is outrageous and unacceptable." [24] [25] [3] Vice President Kamala Harris said, "On the one hand, the proponents are saying that an individual doesn't have a right to end an unwanted pregnancy and, on the other hand, the individual does not have the right to start a family." [25] [3]

Some members of the Republican party, already trying to push their stance on abortion to the background so as to draw votes from women and swing voters, were critical of the Alabama Supreme Court decision since it left no carve out to protect IVF. [25] [26] Former president Donald Trump, running in 2024 for a second term as president, stated that access to IVF and fertility treatments should remain legal. [27] Nikki Haley, another Republican candidate, initially stated that "embryos are babies," but later said she would need to review the law, stating, "We don't want fertility treatments to shut down." [25] New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu and Tennessee Governor Bill Lee also spoke out against the decision. [24] Other Republican leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives praised the decision, having previously backed a bill that would codify that life begins at conception. [28]

Parker's concurrence and Christian nationalism

Chief Justice Tom Parker's concurring opinion rested heavily on Christian principles, leading to concern about his overall approach to judiciary duties. The same day of the decision, an interview with Parker was released where he expressed his beliefs in Christian nationalism and support of the Seven Mountain Mandate. Parker said in this interview, "God created government, and the fact that we have let it go into the possession of others, it's heartbreaking. That's why he is calling and equipping people to step back into these mountains right now." [29]

Parker's comments, in addition to his judicial opinion, have led to concern about the push of Christian nationalism by conservative politicians and the Republican party, and the attempted weakening of the separation of church and state. [29] [30] [31]

Notes

  1. ↑ Decided with Felicia Burdick-Aysenne and Scott Aysenne v. The Center for Reproductive Medicine and Mobile Infirmary Association. [2]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">In vitro fertilisation</span> Assisted reproductive technology procedure

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a process of fertilisation in which an egg is combined with sperm in vitro. The process involves monitoring and stimulating a woman's ovulatory process, then removing an ovum or ova from her ovaries and enabling a man's sperm to fertilise them in a culture medium in a laboratory. After a fertilised egg (zygote) undergoes embryo culture for 2–6 days, it is transferred by catheter into the uterus, with the intention of establishing a successful pregnancy.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision on upholding a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities, and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling an abortion. The Supreme Court in Webster allowed for states to legislate in an aspect that had previously been thought to be forbidden under Roe v. Wade (1973).

The Dickey–Wicker Amendment is the name of an appropriation bill rider attached to a bill passed by United States Congress in 1995, and signed by former President Bill Clinton, which prohibits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed. HHS funding includes the funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It is named after Jay Dickey and Roger Wicker, two Republican Representatives. Technically, the Dickey Amendment is a rider to other legislation, which amends the original legislation. The rider receives its name from the name of the Congressman that originally introduced the amendment, Representative Dickey. The Dickey amendment language has been added to each of the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations acts for fiscal years 1997 through 2009. The original rider can be found in Section 128 of P.L. 104–99.

Embryo donation is one disposition option for users of in vitro fertilisation with remaining fresh or frozen embryos. It is defined as the giving—generally without compensation—of embryos remaining after in vitro fertilization procedures to recipients for procreative implantation or research. Most IVF users with supernumerary embryos make embryo donation decisions after completing their families or discontinuing use of in vitro fertilization. Recipients of embryos donated for procreative implantation typically plan to transfer fresh or frozen embryos into a prepared uterus in order to facilitate pregnancy and childbirth. Recipients of embryos donated for research typically use them for clinical training, quality improvement research, or human embryonic stem cell research.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Alabama</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Alabama

The Supreme Court of Alabama is the highest court in the state of Alabama. The court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices. Each justice is elected in partisan elections for staggered six-year terms. The Supreme Court is housed in the Heflin-Torbert Judicial Building in downtown Montgomery, Alabama.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It created the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority which is in charge of human embryo research, along with monitoring and licensing fertility clinics in the United Kingdom.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Beginning of human personhood</span> Opinions on when humans become persons

The beginning of human personhood is the moment when a human is first recognized as a person. There are differences of opinion about the precise time when human personhood begins and the nature of that status. The issue arises in a number of fields, including science, religion, philosophy, and law, and is most acute in debates about abortion, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and fetal rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abortion law in the United States by state</span>

The legality of abortion in the United States and the various restrictions imposed on the procedure vary significantly, depending on the laws of each state or other jurisdiction, although there is no uniform federal law. Some states prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with few exceptions; others permit it up to a certain point in a woman's pregnancy, while some allow abortion throughout a woman's pregnancy. In states where abortion is legal, several classes of restrictions on the procedure may exist, such as parental consent or notification laws, requirements that patients be shown an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion, mandatory waiting periods, and counseling requirements.

Religious response to assisted reproductive technology deals with the new challenges for traditional social and religious communities raised by modern assisted reproductive technology. Because many religious communities have strong opinions and religious legislation regarding marriage, sex and reproduction, modern fertility technology has forced religions to respond.

Abortion is the termination of human pregnancy, often performed in the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. In 1973, the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade recognized a constitutional right to obtain an abortion without excessive government restriction, and in 1992 the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey invalidated restrictions that create an undue burden on people seeking abortions. Since then, there has continued to be an abortion debate in the United States, and some states have passed laws in the form of regulation of abortions but which have the purpose or effect of restricting its provision. The proponents of such laws argue they do not create an undue burden. Some state laws that impact the availability of abortions have been upheld by courts. In 2022, Roe and Casey were overturned by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, meaning that states may now regulate abortion in ways that were not previously permitted.

A six-week abortion ban, also called a "fetal heartbeat bill" by proponents, is a law in the United States which makes abortion illegal as early as six weeks gestational age, which is when proponents claim that a "fetal heartbeat" can be detected. Medical and reproductive health experts, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, say that the reference to a fetal heartbeat is medically inaccurate and misleading, for a conceptus is not called a fetus until eight weeks after fertilization, as well as that at four weeks after fertilization, the embryo has no heart, only a group of cells which will become a heart. Medical professionals advise that a true fetal heartbeat cannot be detected until around 17 to 20 weeks of gestation when the chambers of the heart have become sufficiently developed.

Tom Parker is an American lawyer serving as the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court since 2019. He previously served as an associate justice on the court having been elected to that position in 2004 and re-elected in 2010.

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court announced on June 27, 2016. The Court ruled 5–3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion. On June 28, 2016, the Supreme Court refused to hear challenges from Wisconsin and Mississippi where federal appeals courts had enjoined the enforcement of similar laws.

Abortion in Texas is illegal in most cases. There are nominally exceptions to save the mother's life, or prevent "substantial impairment of major bodily function", but the law on abortion in Texas is written in such an ambiguous way that life-threatening or harmful pregnancies do not explicitly constitute an exception. Attempts to clarify and codify these exceptions into law have been rejected by Republican lawmakers in Texas.

Abortion in Alabama is illegal. Historically, Alabama's abortion laws have evolved from strict regulations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to a period of liberalization following the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide. However, Alabama has consistently enacted legislation aimed at restricting access to abortion.

Abortion in Louisiana is illegal as of August 1, 2022.

Abortion in Mississippi is illegal. The new law took effect on July 7, 2022, after Mississippi State Attorney General Lynn Fitch certified on June 27, the Supreme Court decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on June 24 of that year. State Attorney General Lynn Fitch's certification made Mississippi's 2007 'trigger law' go into effect and ban all abortions in the state, “except in the case where necessary for the preservation of the mother's life or where the pregnancy was caused by rape".

<i>Roche v Roche</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Roche v Roche [2010] 2 IR 321: [2009] IESC 82 is an Irish Supreme Court case which affirmed the High Court decision that frozen embryos did not constitute the “unborn” within the meaning of Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution. The spirit of the Supreme Court's judgement was that frozen embryos were not extended the same right to life as given to embryos protected in the womb. With an increase in IVF among couples, legal issues arise when the couple decide to separate or divorce. This is a landmark case as it gave a judgement on such a circumstance where a couple has separated but there are surplus embryos frozen at a clinic. The Court made its decision by ultimately taking into account the right to reproduce.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the court held that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion. The court's decision overruled both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), returning to the federal and state legislatures the power to regulate any aspect of abortion not protected by federal statutory law.

Marilyn Lands is an American politician who currently serves as a Democratic member of the Alabama House of Representatives, representing District 10 in Huntsville. She was elected in a March 2024 special election to succeed Republican David Cole, who resigned after being jailed for electoral fraud.

References

  1. ↑ Gunther, Brad (2024-02-16). "Alabama Supreme court rules in-vitro embryos are children". WPMI. Retrieved 2024-02-25.
  2. ↑ Brown, Elizabeth (February 21, 2024). "Frozen Embryos Are Now Children Under Alabama Law". Reason . Retrieved February 23, 2024.
  3. 1 2 3 Rabin, Roni; Ghorayshi, Azeen (February 20, 2024). "Alabama Rules Frozen Embryos Are Children, Raising Questions About Fertility Care". The New York Times . Retrieved February 23, 2024.
  4. 1 2 3 Hoffman, Jan (February 20, 2024). "Alabama Says Embryos in a Lab Are Children. What Are the Implications?". The New York Times . Retrieved February 23, 2024.
  5. 1 2 Hitson, Hadley (February 22, 2024). "Women reconsider IVF plans as fertility practices across Alabama pause procedures". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2024-02-23.
  6. 1 2 3 Pierson, Brendan (February 23, 2024). "Explainer: Alabama's highest court ruled frozen embryos are people. What is next?". Reuters . Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  7. ↑ Chandler, Kim (2024-02-20). "Warnings of the impact of fertility treatments in Alabama rush in after frozen embryo ruling". AP News. Retrieved 2024-02-23.
  8. ↑ Moniuszko, Sara; Cohen, Paula (2024-02-21). "Alabama court ruled frozen embryos are children. Experts explain potential impacts to IVF treatment. - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2024-02-23.
  9. ↑ Ravitz, Jessica (November 7, 2018). "Two states passed abortion amendments to their constitutions in the midterm. What does that mean?". CNN . Retrieved February 25, 2024.
  10. 1 2 Hughes, Trevor; Arshad, Minnah (February 22, 2024). "Alabama justice invoked 'the wrath of a holy God' in IVF opinion. Is that allowed?". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2024-02-23.
  11. ↑ Hixenbaugh, Mike (February 22, 2024). "Alabama justice who ruled embryos are people says American law should be rooted in the Bible". NBC News. Retrieved February 22, 2024.
  12. ↑ Smith, Peter; Stanley, Tiffany (February 24, 2024). "Chief justice's Christian reasoning in IVF opinion sparks alarm over church-state separation". Associated Press . Retrieved February 26, 2024.
  13. 1 2 Brown, Elizabeth (February 21, 2024). "Frozen Embryos Are Now Children Under Alabama Law". Reason . Retrieved February 26, 2024.
  14. ↑ Hughes, Trevor (February 21, 2024). "IVF supporters are 'freaking out' over Alabama court decision treating embryos as children". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2024-02-23.
  15. ↑ "After Ruling, University of Alabama at Birmingham Health System Pauses I.V.F. Procedures".
  16. ↑ Wolfe, Elizabeth; Gallagher, Dianne; Kallingal, Mallika (February 23, 2024). "Alabama attorney general's office says it has 'no intention' to prosecute IVF families, providers". CNN . Retrieved February 25, 2024.
  17. ↑ Shapiro, Emily (February 26, 2024). "Explosive detonated outside Alabama attorney general's office on Saturday". ABC News . Retrieved February 26, 2024.
  18. 1 2 Howard, Jacquiline (February 24, 2024). "How the reversal of Roe v. Wade led to the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos are children". CNN . Retrieved February 25, 2024.
  19. ↑ Capelouto, Susanna; Gassiott, Kyle; Hodgin, Mary Scott (February 23, 2024). "Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey says she wants to protect IVF treatment after court ruling". NPR . Retrieved February 25, 2024.
  20. ↑ "Alabama Senate and House pass bills to protect IVF after court ruling". NBC News. 2024-02-29. Retrieved 2024-06-12.
  21. ↑ "Alabama governor signs bill to protect IVF treatments into law". NBC News. 2024-03-07. Retrieved 2024-06-12.
  22. ↑ Jalonick, Mary Clare; Groves, Stephen (February 28, 2024). "Republicans block Senate bill to protect nationwide access to IVF treatments". Associated Press . Retrieved February 28, 2024.
  23. ↑ "Embryo Ruling Doesn't Rely on Federal Cases, But May Erode Them". news.bloomberglaw.com. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  24. 1 2 Chidi, George (22 February 2024). "'Outrageous and unacceptable': Biden and Harris decry Alabama court ruling on IVF". The Guardian . Retrieved 24 February 2024.
  25. 1 2 3 4 Zurcher, Anthony; McCausland, Phil (February 23, 2024). "Alabama IVF ruling a political gift for Democrats, headache for Republicans". BBC News . Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  26. ↑ Fox, Lauren; Zenona, Melenie (February 23, 2024). "GOP lawmakers and candidates race to distance themselves from Alabama court decision". CNN . Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  27. ↑ Weisman, Jonathan (February 23, 2024). "Trump Says He Supports I.V.F. and Calls for Treatment to Remain Legal".
  28. ↑ Metzger, Bryan (February 23, 2024). "125 House Republicans — including Speaker Mike Johnson — back a 'life at conception' bill without any IVF exception". Business Insider . Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  29. 1 2 Hixenbaugh, Mike (February 22, 2024). "Alabama justice who ruled embryos are people says American law should be rooted in the Bible". NBC News . Retrieved February 25, 2024.
  30. ↑ Smith, Peter; Stanley, Tiffany (February 23, 2024). "Chief justice's Christian reasoning in IVF opinion sparks alarm over church-state separation". Associated Press . Retrieved February 25, 2024.
  31. ↑ Hughes, Trevor; Arshad, Minnah (February 22, 2024). "Alabama justice invoked 'the wrath of a holy God' in IVF opinion. Is that allowed?". USA Today . Retrieved February 25, 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.