Podcasts > Strict Scrutiny > The Alabama Supreme Court Embraces Fetal Personhood

The Alabama Supreme Court Embraces Fetal Personhood

By Crooked Media

In a pivotal discussion on the "Strict Scrutiny" podcast, speakers Kate Shaw, Leah Litman, Melissa Murray with guests Adeel Mangi, Ted Cruz, and Sherrilyn Ifill delve into the ramifications of a recent Alabama Supreme Court decision. This ruling classifies frozen embryos as individuals, thereby sparking legal and ethical concerns about in vitro fertilization (IVF) practices and reproductive rights. The episode dissects the impact of this decision on clinics and the broader implications for 14th Amendment rights, touching on the intersection of theology and legislation within the court's ruling.

Additionally, the podcast navigates the potential use of the Comstock Act as a legal tool to enforce a federal abortion ban, exploring perspectives from various Republican figures who may influence future legislation on fetal personhood. This examination foregrounds the broader conservative agenda, hinting at a considerable policy shift that could take place under a Republican administration. The speakers also scrutinize the possible curtailment of 14th Amendment protections within the context of the Supreme Court's current conservative makeup, highlighting the justices' approaches to significant civil liberties and anti-discrimination cases.

Listen to the original

The Alabama Supreme Court Embraces Fetal Personhood

This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Feb 26, 2024 episode of the Strict Scrutiny

Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.

The Alabama Supreme Court Embraces Fetal Personhood

1-Page Summary

Alabama Supreme Court Decision Embracing Fetal Personhood and Endangering IVF

The decision by the Alabama Supreme Court to treat frozen, unimplanted embryos as "extrauterine children" under wrongful death laws has significant consequences for IVF treatments and reproductive rights. Clinics fear legal and civil repercussions, leading to a pause in IVF services. The court's deliberation intersects with overarching 14th Amendment considerations, threatening to invalidate legislative measures that regulate or permit IVF.

Chief Justice Tom Parker justifies the decision, drawing on a "theologically based view of the sanctity of life," indicating his support for governing based on conservative Christian principles. Parker's stance, shared during a broadcast with evangelist Johnny Enlow, reflects the broader conservative movement's endeavor to establish fetal personhood, placing additional restrictions on reproductive rights. This move is consistent with the conservative agenda to reshape reproductive rights, exemplified by the court's insinuation that freezing embryos might equate to child abuse or endangerment.

Looming Federal Personhood Developments in Potential Future Republican Administration

The possibility of employing the 1873 Comstock Act as a federal abortion ban by a future Republican administration without Congress is reviewed. The act, overlooked as an abortion prohibition, could be repurposed as a sweeping federal ban. Jonathan Mitchell, the legal mind behind Texas's SB8 law, views this strategy as feasible given the current Supreme Court's composition, and he advocates for understanding fetuses as persons under state wrongful death statutes, thus promoting fetal personhood.

Republican presidential hopefuls, including Senator Tommy Tuberville, Nikki Haley, and Senator Tim Scott, have articulated or shown interest in federal personhood advancements. Their remarks indicate that the topic is gaining traction within Republican circles, mapping out a potential policy shift should they assume power.

Court Minimizing 14th Amendment Protections

The Supreme Court, with positions expressed by Justices Alito and Thomas, hints at a leaning towards curtailing the 14th Amendment's protections. Justice Alito's dissent in a sex discrimination case underscores his stance on how religious rights may conflict with anti-discrimination laws. This sentiment coincides with concerns Alito and Thomas have regarding the Obergefell v. Hodges decision on same-sex marriage, signaling their openness to reconsider this and other decisions that broaden the scope of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Their viewpoints suggest that the current conservative composition of the court could lead to a significant reassessment of basic 14th Amendment protections in areas such as voting rights and same-sex marriage.

1-Page Summary

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The 1873 Comstock Act was originally focused on obscenity and contraception, but it could potentially be repurposed as a federal abortion ban due to its broad language and historical context. This act, named after Anthony Comstock, aimed to restrict the distribution of materials related to abortion and contraception. Repurposing it for a federal abortion ban would involve interpreting its provisions in a way that aligns with current anti-abortion efforts. Jonathan Mitchell, known for his involvement in legal strategies related to abortion restrictions, sees potential in using the Comstock Act for this purpose.
  • Jonathan Mitchell, a legal mind, played a significant role in crafting Texas's SB8 law. This law effectively bans most abortions in Texas by allowing private citizens to sue anyone who performs or aids in an abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy. Mitchell's involvement in drafting SB8 reflects his strategic approach to advancing anti-abortion legislation through innovative legal mechanisms.
  • Fetal personhood is a concept that assigns legal and moral status to a developing human embryo or fetus, considering it as a separate individual with rights and protections. It is often linked to debates on abortion, reproductive rights, and stem cell research, where differing views exist on when personhood begins during human development. This concept intersects with discussions on the soul, bodily integrity, and the ethical considerations surrounding the beginning of human personhood. Biological markers like fertilization mark the point where a unique genetic entity is formed, raising questions about the onset of personhood.
  • Justices Alito and Thomas have expressed concerns about the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, suggesting a potential reassessment of its scope. Their viewpoints indicate a willingness to reconsider decisions like Obergefell v. Hodges on same-sex marriage. They have hinted at a leaning towards curtailing the 14th Amendment's protections, particularly in areas such as voting rights and anti-discrimination laws.
  • The Obergefell v. Hodges decision was a landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The case addressed whether the fundamental right to marry applies to same-sex couples under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The decision invalidated state bans on same-sex marriage, affirming marriage equality as a constitutional right. Obergefell v. Hodges is considered a pivotal moment in LGBTQ rights and marked a significant shift in marriage laws in the United States.

Counterarguments

  • The Alabama Supreme Court's decision may be seen as an attempt to legally recognize and protect what some believe to be the inherent value of human life from its earliest stages.
  • The decision could be argued to reflect the democratic process, as the judges of the Alabama Supreme Court are elected officials and their decisions may reflect the values of the voters who elected them.
  • The pause in IVF services could be temporary as clinics adjust to new legal frameworks, and it may not necessarily lead to a permanent cessation of IVF treatments.
  • Some may argue that the decision does not intersect with the 14th Amendment as it pertains to state law and the rights of potential life, rather than the rights of persons who have been born.
  • Chief Justice Tom Parker's stance could be defended on the grounds that judges often interpret laws through the lens of their own moral and ethical frameworks, which can be influenced by a variety of philosophical or religious beliefs.
  • The insinuation that freezing embryos might equate to child abuse or endangerment could be seen as a call for a more nuanced ethical discussion about the treatment and status of embryos in society.
  • The use of the 1873 Comstock Act as a federal abortion ban could be argued as a legitimate exercise of executive authority if interpreted within the bounds of the law, especially if supported by the Supreme Court's interpretation.
  • Advocates for fetal personhood may argue that recognizing fetuses as persons under wrongful death statutes is a logical extension of protecting human life and could lead to more consistent legal standards.
  • Justices Alito and Thomas may argue that their positions on the 14th Amendment are grounded in a strict interpretation of the Constitution and a belief in the importance of states' rights and religious freedoms.
  • The reassessment of 14th Amendment protections could be viewed as a necessary correction to what some perceive as judicial overreach in previous decisions, aiming to return to a more originalist understanding of the Constitution.

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
The Alabama Supreme Court Embraces Fetal Personhood

Alabama Supreme Court Decision Embracing Fetal Personhood and Endangering IVF

The Alabama Supreme Court has issued a decision with far-reaching implications for IVF and reproductive rights, embracing an interpretation of fetal personhood that places new legal considerations on unimplanted embryos.

Court's interpretation counts unimplanted embryos as children under wrongful death law, threatening IVF (What, Why)

The Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling states that frozen, unimplanted embryos are considered "extrauterine children" under the state's wrongful death of a minor law. The implications of this decision are concerning for IVF treatment and practitioners in Alabama, who now face potential legal and civil liabilities. The plaintiffs were fertility clinic patients who had created more embryos than were implanted—a common practice in IVF due to the uncertainty of implantation success. The court's decision has led many clinics in Alabama to pause IVF treatments amid confusion regarding the legality and future practice of IVF in the state.

The court further acknowledged it was addressing complex questions about the status of extra-uterine embryos under the 14th Amendment and state statutes but resolved the issue under state law. They hinted that their Constitution could prevent IVF and that any legislative attempts to permit or regulate it might be struck down.

Chief Justice Parker's majority opinion refers to a "theologically based view of the sanctity of life" (What, Why, How)

Chief Justice Tom Parker wrote separately in agreement with the decision, underscoring the "sanctity of unborn life," including life outside the womb. His opinion implied that a "theologically based view of the sanctity of life," as adopted by Alabamians, asserts that "God made every person in his image."

Chief Justice Parker’s embrace of a theologically based view was further discussed during an online broadcast with evangelist Johnny Enlow. Parker suggested America is meant to be a Christian nation and indicated Alabama's commitment to embody Biblical principles regarding life. Parker's comments align with his reported adherence to the Seven Mountains Mandate, advocating for conservative Christian governance across key socie ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Alabama Supreme Court Decision Embracing Fetal Personhood and Endangering IVF

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • "Extrauterine children" is a legal term used in the context of the Alabama Supreme Court decision to classify frozen, unimplanted embryos as such. This classification implies that these embryos are considered legally equivalent to children under certain laws, such as wrongful death statutes. The court's interpretation raises complex legal and ethical questions regarding the status and rights of unimplanted embryos outside the womb. This decision has significant implications for IVF practices and reproductive rights in Alabama.
  • The Alabama Supreme Court's ruling on fetal personhood and IVF has raised concerns about potential legal and civil liabilities for fertility clinics and patients in the state. The decision could impact the practice of IVF by considering unimplanted embryos as "extrauterine children" under wrongful death law, leading to uncertainty and potential restrictions on IVF treatments in Alabama. This ruling reflects a broader conservative movement's push to establish fetal personhood legally, extending beyond abortion to impact reproductive rights in unprecedented ways. The court's interpretation of embryos as children under the law could have significant implications for the future of IVF practices and regulations in Alabama.
  • Chief Justice Tom Parker's theologically based view of the sanctity of life reflects his belief that life is sacred and should be protected, extending this protection to unborn embryos outside the womb. He emphasizes a perspective rooted in religious principles, asserting that every person is created in the image of God. This viewpoint influences his legal decisions and aligns with his support for Christian governance principles.
  • The Seven Mountains Mandate is a belief among some conservative Christians that they should influence and take control of seven key areas of society, known as the "mountains," including government, media, education, business, arts and entertainment, family, and religion. This ideology aims to shape these spheres of influence according to Christian principles and values, seeking to establish a society aligned with their religious beliefs. Advocates of the Seven Mountains Mandate believe that by gaining control over these areas, th ...

Counterarguments

  • The Alabama Supreme Court's interpretation of the law reflects the democratic process and the will of the people in Alabama, who may have elected representatives and judges with these views.
  • The decision could be seen as an attempt to protect the rights of all human beings, regardless of their developmental stage, based on a philosophical or moral belief in the intrinsic value of human life.
  • IVF clinics may adapt to new regulations by developing practices that align with the state's legal framework, ensuring both the continuation of IVF treatments and compliance with the law.
  • The ruling may prompt a necessary debate on the ethical considerations surrounding IVF and the status of embryos, leading to more thoughtful and deliberate practices in reproductive technology.
  • The court's decision could encourage the development of new technologies or methods in reproductive medicine that reduce the number of excess embryos created, potentially addressing ethical concerns.
  • The ruling may be an expression of federalism, where states have the right to pass and interpret laws in a manner that reflects the values and beliefs of their residents, which is a foundational principle of the United States.
  • The decision could lead to clearer legal definitions and protections for embryos, which some argue have been ambiguous and insufficient up to this point.
  • The emphasis on a theologically based view of life may resonate with a significant porti ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
The Alabama Supreme Court Embraces Fetal Personhood

Looming Federal Personhood Developments in Potential Future Republican Administration

Murray and Shaw discuss the potential use of the 1873 Comstock Act as a federal abortion ban by a future Republican administration and the views of architect Jonathan Mitchell in connection with the current Supreme Court.

Enforcement of 1873 Comstock Act as federal abortion ban without Congressional action (What, Why)

There is talk of enforcing the 1873 Comstock Act, historically not considered an abortion prohibition, as a means to enact a federal abortion ban by a future administration without the need for Congressional action. The act was previously interpreted to not forbid items used for abortions as long as the sender did not intend them to be used illegally. However, plans are in place to enforce the act for a sweeping ban if the right group gains the presidency, circumventing congressional or judicial need.

Anti-abortion architect Jonathan Mitchell sees it as ideal given current Supreme Court (What, Why, How)

Jonathan Mitchell, known as the architect of Texas's SB8 anti-abortion law, suggests employing the Comstock Act as a tool for a federal abortion ban. Notably, Mitchell adds that the current composition of the Supreme Court creates an opportune environment to enforce the Comstock Act without requiring Congress. Mitchell advanced fetal personhood by advocating under Texas's wrongful death statute to establish fetuses as persons under state law—a strategy reflecting his desire to adapt to the Supreme Court's leaning ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Looming Federal Personhood Developments in Potential Future Republican Administration

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The 1873 Comstock Act was a federal law that aimed to suppress the trade in obscene materials and items related to immoral use, including contraceptives and abortifacients. It prohibited the use of the U.S. Postal Service to send such items and was part of a broader effort to regulate morality and public decency. The Act was named after Anthony Comstock, a prominent anti-vice activist who played a key role in its passage and enforcement. It had significant implications for the distribution of materials related to sexuality and reproductive health during that time.
  • The SB8 anti-abortion law in Texas, also known as the Texas Heartbeat Act, prohibits abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually around six weeks of pregnancy. It is unique in that it empowers private citizens to enforce the law by suing anyone who performs or aids in an abortion in violation of the statute. This law has faced significant legal challenges and controversy due to its enforcement mechanism and restrictive nature. The law has been seen as a significant development in the ongoing debate over abortion rights in the United States.
  • Fetal personhood is a concept that involves granting legal recognition and rights to a fetus as if it were a person. This idea is often discussed in the context of debates around abortion and reproductive rights. It raises questions about when a fetus should be considered a legal person with rights and protections.
  • Federal personhood advancements involve efforts to legally recognize fetuses as persons at the federal level, granting them rights and protections similar to those of born individuals. This concept is often linked to the abortion debate, as granting personhood to fetuses could impact the legality and availability of abortion services. Advocates of federal personhood advancements seek to establish legal recognition of fetuses as individuals with rights under federal law, potentially leading to significant changes in reproductive rights and healthcare policies. The discussion around federal personhood advancements intersects with political, legal, and ethical considerations, shaping the landscape of reproductive rights and legislation in the United States.
  • Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville is a member of the ...

Counterarguments

  • The enforcement of the 1873 Comstock Act as a federal abortion ban may face significant legal challenges, as its original intent was not to prohibit abortion, and such an interpretation could be seen as a stretch of its original purpose.
  • The Supreme Court's current composition may not necessarily guarantee the success of enforcing the Comstock Act as a federal abortion ban, as the justices may rule based on constitutional interpretation rather than political alignment.
  • The concept of fetal personhood is highly contested, and there are arguments that establishing fetuses as legal persons could have far-reaching implications beyond abortion, affecting women's rights and access to healthcare.
  • Senator Tommy Tuberville's support for federal personhood advancements may not reflect the views of all constituents, and there is a debate about whether such a stance could infringe on individual rights and states' rights to legislate on the matter.
  • While Nikki Haley has shown interest in fetal per ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
The Alabama Supreme Court Embraces Fetal Personhood

Court Minimizing 14th Amendment Protections

The Supreme Court's decisions and opinions from Justices Alito and Thomas suggest a potential shift in how the 14th Amendment's protections are applied, particularly concerning voting rights and same-sex marriage.

Background on how the Warren Court and others restricted voting rights and more (What)

While the information for a comprehensive background is not available in the given transcript chunk, the Warren Court, historically known for its progressive rulings, significantly expanded civil rights and the scope of the 14th Amendment. This included strides in voting rights and racial equality.

Alito opinion in gay marriage case suggests he and Thomas are open to overturning decision (What)

Justice Alito's dissent regarding a lower court's admissions policy and a case involving a lesbian plaintiff alleging sex discrimination, shows his profound disagreement with the court's direction. Alito's observation that excluding jurors with negative views on homosexuality could be seen as bias against religion underscores his concern about the interplay between religious rights and anti-discrimination laws.

This perspective fits i ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Court Minimizing 14th Amendment Protections

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The Warren Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren from 1953 to 1969, is known for expanding civil rights and the 14th Amendment's reach. It made significant strides in voting rights and racial equality through decisions like Brown v. Board of Education. These actions aimed to address systemic discrimination and promote equal protection under the law.
  • The Obergefell v. Hodges case was a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2015 that legalized same-sex marriage across the United States. It affirmed the right to marriage equality for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The ruling effectively invalidated state laws that prohibited same-sex marriage, making it a significant victory for LGBTQ rights. Obergefell v. Hodges is considered a pivotal moment in the fight for marriage equality and has had a lasting impact on civil rights in the U.S.
  • A conservative shift on the bench could lead to a re-evaluation of 14th Amendment prot ...

Counterarguments

  • The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution often evolves, and what may seem like a shift could be part of a natural judicial process of reassessment and refinement of legal doctrines.
  • Justices Alito and Thomas may argue that their positions are not about minimizing protections but rather about adhering to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
  • The expansion of civil rights by the Warren Court, while significant, is not beyond critique; some legal scholars argue that certain decisions may have extended beyond the text of the Constitution.
  • Dissenting opinions, such as those by Justice Alito, are a standard part of the judicial process and can reflect a healthy diversity of viewpoints on the bench.
  • Concerns about the Obergefell v. Hodges decision by Justices Alito and Thomas might be based on legal reasoning regarding the judicial process and federalism rather than opposition to same-sex marriage per se.
  • The potential for overtu ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free

Create Summaries for anything on the web

Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser

Shortform Extension CTA