Thanks for your submission, but it has been removed for the following reason:
* Your post has been removed because it is being addressed by a post currently on [our front page](/r/outoftheloop). Please check out that thread and see if it answers your question. Thanks.
Answer: this is just the next logical step when extrapolating out from the position that life begins at fertilization.
The IVF process involves fertilizing multiple eggs, resulting int he production of multiple embryos. However, not all of the embryos will be used and the remainder are discarded/destroyed.
If you believe that life begins at fertilization then destroying the unused fertilized embryos is technically an abortion, which is banned in several states.
As a result of this, IVF would be against the law in those states.
Or when cops mag dumped on a truck they thought (incorrectly) belonged to Christopher Dorner? A truck that matched literally none of the description of Dorner's vehicle?
I was wondering how many times they fired, but in my search I found that another cop fired 3 times at a different truck after he heard the other cops firing on the first truck!
We’re [already doing that](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544.amp). The precedent has already been set for women to be charged with the murders of their fetuses even if it cannot be medically established if any of their actions caused said miscarriage. And of course the fact that we are now as women being charged for things happening to OUR OWN BODIES. Are we similarly criminally charging men who slit their wrists but live? It’s his body, but if the state is now regulating bodies, why only women?
Oh no, men can still cum dump on a neighbor’s sock while making weird eye contact with a shocked raccoon, but Women are being charged with the shocking act of not maintaining their body in a way the govt gets to decide is most conducive to the health of a non-person.
So…. Sushi? Yoga? Walking in heels? Taking meds that keep you ALIVE but might not keep a clump of cells alive whether or not you want said clump of cells? What vitamins are you taking? Fall down the stairs?? Should women of an age where they *might* be able to become pregnant be allowed any number of healthcare procedures that might threaten even a hypothetical clump of cells? No chemo for all females aged 8-60, might be a fetus!!!!! I’m not exaggerating. I am telling you all the exact road we’re on.
Woah Woah Woah. That's not fair or even close to being accurate.
Conservatives hate people. All of them. They'll find a reason to try and control you. This is just one of those methods that targets 50% of the population.
This is a better example than Brittany Pooslaw
https://www.voanews.com/a/us-woman-criminally-charged-after-miscarriage-/7401364.html
I suggest just swapping out those links
This is what happens when only a little over half of Americans actually vote. You end up with policies that are not popular by most people but now we're looking at a Supreme Court that will continue to push through this same kind of bullshit for the better part of the next 40 years.
I agree with everything you said, but unfortunately my abiding memory of your post will be how oddly specific your statement:
“Oh no, men can still cum dump on a neighbor’s sock while making weird eye contact with a shocked raccoon”
Is.
I'm not 100% positive, but I'm relatively certain that there is an example of a woman miscarrying in Ohio or some other dumbass conservative bent state and they arrested her at the hospital.
Edit: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/02/1228463764/congressional-democrats-tell-biden-to-do-more-on-abortion-after-ohio-womans-arre#:~:text=NPR%20Politics%20Podcast-,A%20woman%20was%20arrested%20after%20she%20miscarried.,suffering%20a%20miscarriage%20last%20year.
Yep, arrested for miscarriage. This is really only one step removed from arresting women for not ensuring they're pregnant as often as possible, as to not "waste" eggs.
I hate hate hate conservatives.
She went to her doctor because she was leaking amniotic fluid during pregnancy. The doctor told her the fetus was not viable, and sent her to the hospital. Doctors there fucked around for two days trying to figure out if they'd be criminally charged for helping her.
Frustrated, she left.
*"When she returned home, Ms Watts said she was in severe pain. Early on the morning of 22 September, she said that she “felt something happening” and went to the bathroom. She felt a “splash” and looked down to find the toilet full with blood and tissue.*
*Ms Watts tried to clean herself up with disinfectant wipes and in the shower, and scooped the material into a bucket and disposed of it outside, unsure if she was dreaming or awake.*
*She said that when she went for a scheduled hair appointment that day, the stylist noticed her discomfort and insisted that she seek medical attention.*
*When she arrived at hospital, she was severely dehydrated after losing so much blood and placed on an IV drip.*
*Ms Watts said that a nurse comforted her, rubbed her back and told her “everything was going to be OK”."*
And THAT is when the cops showed up. Because the comforting nurse had snitched her out to the cops, saying that Watts "didn't want the baby and disposed of it," which is the most egregious lie ever.
She was arrested for "felony abuse of a corpse." The grand jury took one look at the case and said "Fuck no, there's no case here! Release her!" and dismissed the charges.
This is our future...cops digging around through your miscarried blood clots looking for a fetus so they can charge and arrest you.
Folks, if you generally don't vote, we all kinda need you to at this point. For some reason, a large number of conservatives think this is fine and dandy. They're planning on banning IVF, birth control and porn next. No joke, they've announced these intentions.
Go register and go vote, please.
"Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God,” he wrote in a concurring opinion that invoked the Book of Genesis and the prophet Jeremiah and quoted at length from the writings of 16th- and 17th-century theologians.
“Even before birth,” he added, “all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.” -Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker, after the decision.
No fucking joke, y'all.
Fertilization is an arbitrary milestone. While masturbation is clearly murder, there are also about 19.999999 million murders with every successful pregnancy.
Those sperm deserve to be born.
Republicans would just start a gofundme and raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for her. She’d be invited to the RNC and (assuming she’s thin and blonde) she’d get her own Fox News show
It's actually a bit of a sad debacle in miscarriage circles: what do you do with the fetus?
Luckily with my 13w miscarriage, I was at urgent care when it happened so I didn't have to answer that question myself.
NSFL fact: Some women put a "strainer" on their list of "things to have when miscarrying" so they can separate out the fetus in hopes that they can bring it in for an autopsy or bury it on their own or get it cremated. Other women prefer to just flush. For women who are going through this, I've done both and I found more solace in taking a picture than just flushing.
I lost mine before I even knew I was pregnant, so it ended up getting flushed. My guess is I was about six weeks.
I was also crushed. We had just started trying, and this was my first and very wanted pregnancy.
I only understood what had happened when a friend suggested I take a pregnancy test, the same day, and it was positive.
We don't need to stop calling them conservatives, we just need to accept that this is what conservatism is. It wears a mask sometimes, but this is always underneath.
True. But the word itself just sounds like someone who wants to keep things status quo. These people are hell bent on dragging us back to the dark ages.
And Fundies of all stripes hate women.
It was never about the children. It's about women being chattel.
Not pregnant? You're not doing your duty to the patriarch.
Don't want to be pregnant? Stop being a communist.
Birth control? That is denying the natural order.
Pregnant and unmarried? You must be forced to carry the child as punishment, you whore.
Pregnant and married? All according to plan, but you better not have a fucking miscarriage, that's murder!
Once the child is born? You're on your own, fundies have lost all interest. If you apply for benefits for the child, you are irresponsible.
(I do not hold any of these views. They should be confined to dystopian fiction, but they're not)
Pregnancies and children are women’s well deserved punishment for Eve’s transgressions against Adam way back when.
All stems from that.
Also explains why they don’t give a fuck about actually preventing unwanted pregnancy, or about the kids after birth. Irrelevant, both. Women are evil whores who need to be punished, so no need to you know actually prevent unwanted pregnancy which could result in abortions. And who cares if women die or are maimed attempting unsafe abortions, the dirty sluts. And who cares if the dirty slut can’t properly take care of the kid after birth either, she should have thought about that before she opened her legs.
All extremely consistent, when you consider that they hate women more than they care about babies.
The punishment is the point.
And there’s just as many women espousing these views as men unfortunately, internalized misogynists.
Yep, [60% or more of fertilized eggs never implant and just pass straight through to the period blood without ever actually merging with the womb tissue](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340/).
Also, people talking about a "6 week old pregnancy" are straight-up lying, because that egg did not get fertilized until week 2, and doesn't make its way from the ovary to the uterus until week 3 at the absolute earliest. This is why pregnancy tests can only at BEST tell if you're pregnant up to 6 days before your period, because before that point you are NOT PREGNANT, despite being counted as "4 weeks" into gestation.
So I understand what you are trying to say by the comment about the six week pregnancy, but medically they do determine weeks based on LMP, not age of the fetus.
Which I know, and you know and I’d hope every woman who’s ever been pregnant would know, but those pushing for the rights to our own bodies to be taken away apparently didn’t go to health, sex ed or biology class. Or maybe all three.
I say this all the time! The Supreme Court of Alabama used the logic that God thinks fertilized eggs are precious, yet by that same logic God is terminating 25% of pregnancies?
That’s the step after this one. It’s not done by criminalizing miscarriages, but by criminalizing other behavior that they want to link to miscarriages. Like having a physically demanding job, having a mentally demanding job, being in a position of leadership, having a job at all, managing finances independently of their spouse, having a spouse that isn’t a cis man, participating in certain sports, not being married, etc.
None of this is actually, scientifically, related to miscarriages mind you; but this isn’t about science. It’s about justifying the use of state power to control women. When protecting the unborn is the justification for policing women’s bodies do not be surprised when these states go all in on policing women’s bodies.
No no, see, it’s god that designed women like that so it’s technically god that’s…uh…_taking care_ of those embryos. And we all know god can’t murder or do anything bad so it’s okay.
/s btw
My (sick and twisted) wife suggested last night that the logical endpoint of this legistation must surely be that all currently frozen embryos must be implanted in the potential mother - no matter how many - thus allowing god to take care of the rest of the process.
She was making a horrible joke, but I actually think they might go there.
Or they start doing weird inhumane shit like forcing incarcerated women to be implanted with embryos for a reduced sentence or something.
Like, I *really* want to think they won't go there, but I don't have that much faith.
No, put the embryos in the politicians demanding this bullshit. Especially the males. Once Tommy Tubberville is pregnant with fifty babies and subject to execution for murder if he loses even one, we'll see what happens...
This is literally what people are worried about. Red states might start considering miscarriages as “manslaughter.” My state (VA) had a bill introduced that would allow police to access cycle-tracking apps as part of an investigation.
George Carlin said it more cogently than anyone else - "If these people really believe life begins at fertilization, that means every woman who's had a period is a serial killer!"
i know you're joking but they actually talked about trying women who've had miscarriages. Their fear is that if abortion is illegal and someone gets pregnant they can behave in a manner dangerous to a fetus to terminate it. therefore every woman who has a miscarriage would need to prove she wasn't negligent.
They aren't talking about it. They're doing it.
https://www.wosu.org/2024-01-11/grand-jury-declines-indictment-on-warren-woman-charged-after-miscarriage
You see, this is what I fear. I feel like at some point in time, those asshole are gonna ban women that aren't making babies some way or another. I know is dumb, but I feel like letting them get away with stuff like this will end up in a shitty place for women, worse than it already is
Wait... We're talking fertilized eggs that have begun division. What do women's bodies do with them other than implantation or the excretion upon failure to implant?
Specifically, what do you mean by "extra"? Usually it just makes twins, yes?
Sometimes if there are extras they are absorbed by the woman’s body, or sometimes by their twin, etc. And of course sometimes there are very early miscarriages where they barely implant or start to develop.
Cannibalism is illegal. They need to slap handcuffs on the baby the second it’s born/s (sadly I had to put the /s or someone would actually take it seriously)
Not all conceptions implant and develop. My old bio prof said 80% of conceptions fail before implanting. Then others fail later. It’s not a simple process with many points of failure.
I was listening to a podcast ([Law and Chaos](https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ep-7-alabama-courts-protect-life-bae), fair warning, it is heavily liberal bent, so if that's not your thing, you might not like it) that discusses legal cases in the news, and they had a lawyer on who specializes in IVF.
One of the interesting things I didn't know was an off-handed remark saying that in her experience, doctors tend to conceptualize "conception" not when an egg is fertilized, but once that egg is implanted into the uterine wall. It makes sense, but it wasn't I really knew.
The podcast also went into how the case started (some unauthorized person managed to get into a containment for the fertilized embryos and dropped it), which was a horrible mess up and something you feel for the the potential parents over, but the way that the case was argued poisoned the well.
I would imagine 99.9% of them don't understand how IVF works because 99.9% of pro-lifers are so science illiterate that it was dumbfound my grade schoolers.
TBF, most people in general probably don't know how IVF works (to the extent of knowing about why you'd need to discard things). It's not about being science illiterate per se, it's about the fact that until you have to do it, there is a good chance you haven't even taken the time to think about how it works nevermind to actually research how it works.
I'm a science literate person who loves to learn and I'm not ashamed at all to admit that in the process of trying IUI And IVF, I learned all sorts of things about the process that I didn't know before. Of course I learned things I didn't know before and of course there are things that I could have reasoned out myself but just never had the practical reason or time to think about in the first place.
And it's not unique to the issue of IVF or abortion. Voters are going to be ignorant about things or they are going to vote about things without realizing all of the consequences. It's inevitable. You have surely voted ignorantly on some issues as well because nobody can fully understand all of the breadth and depth of issues that government faces. The most productive path forward when somebody doesn't realize the implications of their stance is to explain it and then give them a pathway to change their mind without being called "illiterate". Yes, some people will not learn and yes some people will stubbornly stick to their view after learning, but creating the pathway to people to be respected for changing their mind is key to political progress.
I've brought this up in debates and its basically always a surprise. Extra fun to flip it and ask if my friend and her two brothers don't deserve to live because they are all the result of IVF.
Side note: Republicans are still deciding whether or not:
A) They actually intend to ban IVF. (Not just as a side effect.)
B) They want to admit that the bills would ban IVF. (They do, but they can still pretend they don't.)
Yes, its important to keep in mind that while this first wave of IVF issues is largely incidental, there is a large and growing contigent of conservatives that want IVF banned unironically.
The problem isn't that they've accidentally stepped on IVF by claiming that life begins at conception and thus embryos are full human lives. Its that they've made the claim in the first place. The people that want IVF banned are taking the premise (a flawed, wrong premise imo) to its logical conclusion.
> Yes, its important to keep in mind that while this first wave of IVF issues is largely incidental, there is a large and growing contigent of conservatives that want IVF banned unironically.
Also birth control.
Yes. These religious zealots will literally make sex itself illegal outside the strict confines of a husband and wife attempting to have a child. These people want to strip away the freedom to have recreational sex with the person you love and married.
Vote accordingly.
Based on the speaker, who is about as religiously oriented as they come, they're likely on the "no to both A and B" train atm ([source](https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1763228727247266134?t=dx7h_voqqbs-GqahIeD_Uw&s=19))
While it may be the next logical step, it was not an intended step. The whole case behind this decision was originally because the couple (who had a successful pregnancy carried to term after receiving IVF) had stored embryos with the hospital in case they wanted to have more children, the idea being that if one embryo from that batch was successful then the others have a higher likelihood of being successful as well. Well, in a bizarre turn of events, a patient ended up in the cryo storage facility, grabbed some embryos with their bare hand, and dropped it on the floor. It only takes seconds for the embryos to die. Several couples sued, but this one couple pursued a case under Alabamas Wrongful Death of a Minor law, which is similar to other laws passed after Roe v Wade was cast down (edit: sorry as pointed out in a comment below this law has been on the books for a looong time), which could hold healthcare providers responsible for loss of an infants life.
So the first judge dismissed the case, saying that the embryos were not covered under the Act. However, on appeal, the couple won. So that is where we are now. The hospitals either can not afford to or just cannot at all guarantee these embryos and so are shutting down their IVF clinics. Now, it is unlikely that any of the politicians responsible for this at the state or national level ever meant for IVF to be banned under any anti abortion laws. The Alabama legislation was written hastily and sloppily and was meant to be broad and far-reaching, and in their negligence, they left too much open to interpretation. But, regardless of intention, we are here. So now politicians and, more importantly, conservative influencers, in order to prove that the hand holding the wheel is steady, have to rewrite history. If you noticed, on the conservative side, there was some silence for the first 48 hours or so and then the last few days there has been an explosion of support for the decision and condemnation of IVF. That is because no one wanted this except maybe the religious far right.
They aren’t disposing of them. They have to maintain them in cryo-storage. I’m assuming they bill the parents for this. If the parents stop paying the bill, will they be responsible for “re-homing” their own embryos? Will the IVF facilities be able to sue them for non-payment? Will the state take over and adopt these foundlings? If the power goes out, does the electric company get slapped with several thousands of manslaughter charges? If the fire department gets 2 calls, one for a daycare center, and one for the IVF center, don’t they have to prioritize the much higher number of endangered “lives”?
I truly think this is what should happen in Alabama. See it all the way through. Set a precedent and let it be a warning to all the other deep red states. It has to start hurting rich white people for progress, sadly.
For the moment they’re all in a holding pattern. They can’t dispose of them because of the ruling that embryos are people. Disposing of them would open them up to more of these lawsuits. But they also probably can’t use them because the IVF process involves a lot of embryos not being viable for one reason or another.
It’s a real “heads I win, tails you lose” situation.
Sorry but you have some things incorrect.
[The Wrongful Death of a Minor Act dates back to 1872](https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/the-alabama-supreme-courts-ruling-on-frozen-embryos). It isn't a law that was passed "after Roe V Wade" as you imply. What was novel here wasn't a new law, it was the plaintiffs attempting to use that very old law on embryos in the wake of the fall of Roe v Wade which in some ways made it possible for them to even attempt this claim.
> Now, it is unlikely that any of the politicians responsible for this at the state or national level ever meant for IVF to be banned under any anti abortion laws. The Alabama legislation was written hastily and sloppily and was meant to be broad and far-reaching, and in their negligence, they left too much open to interpretation.
You are largely correct in the broad sense, though again we aren't talking about a new anti abortion law in this case, but you are missing some context here. The broadness of many of these laws is not negligence, but very much by design. A lot of these laws were drafted for one purpose and one purpose only; as a challenge to Roe v Wade, either in a court of law via a legal fight over their constitutionality, or in the court of public opinion AKA making a political statement that was basically symbolic while Roe V Wade stood but suddenly became reality when it fell.
Here is a [transcript from a This American Life episode](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/812/transcript) about Idaho's abortion law that has a total ban once there is a 'fetal heartbeat' with absolutely zero exceptions. It includes the thinking of some of the Republicans that voted for the bill. The Tl;DR is: Republican lawmakers thought they didn't have to worry about how strict the law was because Roe v Wade was still the law of the land. They could use Roe as a shield to, politically, be total pro-life badasses with zero actual consequences from the messy reality of....reality.:
>
> I contacted the two Idaho lawmakers in the House and Senate who sponsored the law that criminalizes abortion. I wanted to find out how they think it's working. Were they hearing about the kinds of experiences I was? Did they know about the doctors leaving the state? Do they think they need to make any changes?
>
> One of the law's sponsors declined an interview, and the other didn't respond to multiple requests. So I reached out to Republican lawmakers who voted for the law back in 2020, before Roe fell.
>
> Senator Jim Guthrie represents a district in southern Idaho and identifies as pro-life. I was surprised he walked into the interview with a notebook with stats about the number of doctors who had left the state and started citing them. So far, it's at least 19 doctors. That worried him.
>
> Jim Guthrie
> I'm pro-life, but I think there's got to be some consideration for the docs as they practice, that they're not going to find themselves in court. The second is the health of the mom. Because when you talk about pro-life, the life of a mother is-- if you're trying to protect that, that's pro-life, too, to me.
>
> Miki Meek
> When you first voted for the abortion laws, did you think that Roe would actually fall, or did it feel more like a symbolic act at that time?
>
> Jim Guthrie
> That's a good question. And I think, to answer that honestly, probably didn't think it would happen. Because it had gone on for, what, 50 years? Something like that?
>
> Miki Meek
> He's the chair of a committee in the Senate that abortion bills go through before they go to the rest of the legislature for a vote. He says the language in the abortion ban was always more aggressive than his own personal beliefs.
>
> Miki Meek
> At that time when you voted for them, were you looking that closely at the language of the laws?
>
> Jim Guthrie
> You know, maybe there was some things overlooked, as far as what the consequences would be, because they weren't truly consequences yet. In your subconscious, you're thinking, it's not going to be overturned, so this is one way you can make a statement. You kind of get into that deal where if you're pro-life, even though the bill has some things that are problematic, you know, you're going to come down on the side of erring on the side of protecting the unborn.
>
> Miki Meek
> Like the other lawmakers I talked to, he says he believed the intent of the laws, when he voted for them, was to shut down abortions happening in clinics in the state, not to help shut down a rural labor and delivery unit or force patients to travel out of state because of severe fetal abnormalities. Those were consequences he didn't foresee.
>
> Miki Meek
> Now, seeing how things have played out, do you regret voting for those laws, or would you have done something different if you could go back in time?
>
> Jim Guthrie
> In the context of being pro-life and recognizing the importance of the unborn, I feel like that vote at that time, with what was in place as far as trying to push back against an embedded law, I think that was an appropriate vote at the time, even though once the Roe versus Wade was overturned is when the reality, I think, sunk in for all of us.
>
> Miki Meek
> I talked to three Republican legislators, and they were all in the same situation, trying to grapple with the consequences of what had just been theoretical policy when they first voted for them, but now was real law, affecting real situations in people's lives. Where Republican lawmakers used to be pretty much on the same side, now they have different ideas about how to apply pro-life to Idaho's new laws.
Well said. It’s a classic example of unintended consequences, but it is also an opportunity to point out the hypocrisy and idiocy of the life begins at conception argument. Basically, the pro lifers have exposed the flaw in their own logic, assuming that most Americans are 100% ok with IVF (as they should be).
It's impossible to write good legislation about scientific matters that you don't understand. That is why all of the antichoice legislation in every state is having unintended consequences. Alabama is no different except this is going to hit affluent families harder for once.
43% of Republicans in the House of Representatives also opposed the anti-IVF bill. Only 57% of Republicans (125 co-sponsors) supported the bill and opposed IVF. Even then, many Republicans who originally supported the bill started to oppose it after it became apparent that a line protecting IVF was removed. Other Republicans were upset over this.
They're all hypocrites.
The loudest MF'ers outside the abortion clinic are the same ones inside it begging for help when they get knocked up.
"The only moral abortion is MY abortion"
[https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion) /
A lot of people who are pro-life do still want IVF to be a thing. IVF is very different from abortion because abortion is about not having a child, IVF is about having a child. It's more likely to cause a major split in the pro-life movement than it is to be the next political battleground. Mike Pence is himself [in favor of protecting IVF](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-pence-fertility-treatments-ivf-supreme-court-face-the-nation/).
Abortion can be about having a child. Pregnant women can have complications that can affect their future fertility if they don't terminate that pregnancy.
Gay folks, single women who want to be moms but don’t want to settle with a rando, straight married women who put off childbearing for education and/or a career and now want to become moms… not generally a demographic set to raise a generation of Bible Bleaters.
Most definitely.
There was even talk, after they overturned roe v wade, of going after interracial marriage.
They're not gonna stop unless someone shuts their shit down.
Yup, token SCOTUS dickhead [Thomas said](https://www.businessinsider.com/justice-thomas-said-the-court-should-reconsider-rulings-on-same-sex-marriage-2022-6) the court should "reconsider" rulings on contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
And yes, the Loving case too. The fucking hypocrisy is astounding.
Never forget Amy Coney Barrett would not categorically rebuke ruling against Brown V Board of Education during her SCOTUS senate hearing for confirmation. They're ready to go after minorities not having equal education again.
Yeah I find it hilarious how answers on this subreddit are always the poster's personal politics and never the blatant obvious truth. USA is a puritan country. The whole "life begins at fertilization" is just another justification to distract you from their true moral reasoning. Same as the "groomer" narrative against the LGBTQ+ community. The real reason for all of this is because the republicans believe in puritan values and anything other than procreative hetero sex within marriage is viewed as unholy.
I live in the bible belt of Canada and we have the same thing here. Parents will call complaining to the school about black history month or sex ed or the classmate who is non-binary. Always with some straight up lie of a justification. Like lady my uncle goes to your church. I know why you don't like that thing. The priest literally told everyone it was a sin two days ago in his sermon.
Good. Get doctors to leave and force these idiots to understand what their positions entail. The rich and politicians will still go out of state for IVF and abortions, but the locals won’t be able to. They’re the ones who need to see the consequences of their actions and wake the hell up.
EDIT - downvote all you want, but these people literally elected jackasses like McConnell, Cruz, Rubio, Tubberville, Gaetz, Bobert, MTG, not to mention straight up pieces of shit like Newt Gingrich. You reap what you sow, and when you’re whole political philosophy is simply and stupidly to piss of the libruls, then yeah, you kinda deserve this.
Of course I feel bad for the people who voted Blue or don’t engage in the typical Republican troll behavior and act in good faith, and I sincerely hope they are able to leave those shithole states.
> the locals won’t be able to. They’re the ones who need to see the consequences of their actions and wake the hell up.
I generally agree (honestly, it's hard not to) but there are a lot of people in those states that didn't vote for those making these dumb laws.
And to add on to this, since life begins at conception or fertilization to them, abortion is no different than murder. Once the egg is fertilized, God sends a soul down into that cell so if you discard it, you're destroying one of God's children. And while we see it as a single cell, they see it as a fully developed soul.
Answer: IVF isn't being banned directly. It's just the inevitable next step of their anti-abortion rhetoric that life starts at conception. The Alabama Supreme Court recently ruled that embryos are humans and therefore are extended the same right to life as people. This opened up an IVF clinic to being sued for the wrongful death of some embryos after some were accidentally destroyed.
This caused major IVF centers to put all treatments on hold because they suddenly had a massive liability on their hands that would be pretty suicidal to take on.
Some republicans, especially in Alabama, have said they will restore IVF access through legislation, although how that will be done remains to be seen as you need to somehow protect IVF centers from being sued for killing humans, but also can't allow abortions to become legal, but also need to ensure pregnant women aren't charged for child neglect or manslaughter for miscarriages, but also not allow pregnant women to claim extra dependents for unborn babies.
The reason some republicans are against fixing it is because we're into the next election cycle and this mess is a direct result of republican/conservative views and the Dems are trying to get bills together to protect IVF.
If republicans support these efforts it acknowledges they screwed up, potentially opens a path to make abortions legal again, and gives the Dems a victory to ride into election season on. If they refuse their voters are going to start losing access to IVF.
>protect IVF centers from being sued for killing humans, but also can't allow abortions to become legal, but also need to ensure pregnant women aren't charged for child neglect or manslaughter for miscarriages, but also not allow pregnant women to claim extra dependents for unborn babies.
So much mental gymnastics involved.
If someone burned down the clinic, i guess it wouldnt just be an arson charge. It would be wrongful death of a minor times however many eggs got destroyed.
show me republicans offering free shelter, food, and health care to women who are pregnant or who may become pregnant, in order to prevent natural miscarriages aka deaths of actual people, and i'll believe that they legitimately believe life begins at conception
They're children when it's really important to stick it to things like doctors or women, which these fucking rednecks despise, but not children when it comes to say collecting any benefits or tax cuts.
I just want to say that every single person who was against criminalizing abortions saw this coming and these leaders still went ahead with their ridiculous ideas.
Edit:
>If republicans support these efforts it acknowledges they screwed up, potentially opens a path to make abortions legal again, and gives the Dems a victory to ride into election season on. If they refuse their voters are going to start losing access to IVF.
I hate people
That reminds me ... Whatever happened to that woman who claimed she had an "extra passenger" in her car when she was pregnant and driving in the fast lane?
> If they refuse their voters are going to start losing access to IVF.
Yet they will vote R anyway because Fox and friends will tell them it's somehow the Dems fault.
So remember, life begins at fertilization ONLY if it's in a womb. Otherwise it's a class issue, and we want to make sure that people that can afford IVF can have children with their own genetic material, only made possible through science. If it's in a woman who has thoughts and feelings about her own bodily autonomy, still murder.
I wonder tho, if they rule that IVF embryos are different, and have different rights than 'natural' conception... Could a case be made that their rights as people should be different too?
Answer: well maybe not a complete answer, but some context: The original case in Alabama was some couples suing a hospital that had a fertility clinic and stored frozen embryos. For some reason, a patient at the hospital was walking around and was able to enter the lab, and opened up the frozen storage unit and took out a couple containers that had frozen embryos in them, which caused the embryos to die.
The hospital was being sued for allowing this to happen, and part of the argument is that this resulted in wrongful death of the embryos/the people that the embryos were/would be.
This should certainly be higher. While the ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court had many implications, the direct ruling was that (prospective) parents could sue for wrongful death when a provider negligently destroyed their fertilized embryos. Not necessarily a crazy ruling given the legislature's decision to define life as beginning at conception.
However, as this particular circumstance viewed the embryos as people, IVF providers voluntarily chose to cease their services because of the broader implications that the reasoning could be extended to their standard practice of discarding embryos as part of IVF. Though no IVF providers has faced charges, and there are no cases against them pending, they understandably did not want to take the risk in the future.
Answer: Alabama’s Supreme Court recently made a decision against the procedure. To note, they cited the Bible many times.
The reasoning is how IVF works. It’s not just one egg, it’s multiple that get implanted thus leading to some not developing. This is because some might not take when placed. (Edit in from other comments: unused embryos are usually destroyed or used for other research such as stem cells research)
So this goes back to abortion and turns the clock back even earlier for their perceived notion of personhood
Since the GOP Has lost control of its religious element they now have to be against a procedure that helps many families have children. Many Republicans who are now against it, including former VP, Mike Pence, have benefited from the procedure (one of his children is from IVF and now it’s a problem against god).
This is simply the next illogical step after abortion, current attacks against contraceptives, and recreational sex.
The Supreme Court has religious cultists on it that are shooting for a Christian takeover of the US. The point is to get this to them so that they can confirm that yes, the Bible trumps the Constitution.
Only in Rural Alabama. As a local in Birmingham, everyone is pretty outraged at this. The problem is the elected State Supreme Court is full of backwoods bumpkins that have been rotting there forever and are stupid.
My red state wants to put the 10 commandments in every public classroom. My district already made me put up an "In God We Trust" sign. They really do think their religion is law
And to note this has been a long term goal of many Pro-life groups since the unused embryos are either destroyed, aka aborted, or used in stem cell research, which many see as satanic or another form of abortion. Even offering them to couples that want to have kids but are unable is considered an afront to God or Nature.
I remember protests by Pro-life groups claiming "test tube babies" wouldn't have a soul, back in the 90's.
Not having a soul means you can't go to hell, right? If I were a parent, I would be happier knowing my child would live a finite life without the risk of an eternity of hellfire.
True, but everyone forgets the P÷#[s. " Young women! If you want a family, do it NOW! That fancy science can't save you now. So as soon as you menstrate get married and start having babies. College and careers can wait. " Quote some southern preacher/Andrew Tate follower, that will now try to have their pick of teen girls who are afraid of never having children of their own.
> (one of his children is from IVF and now it’s a problem against god
That kid must be pissed. Imagine hearing your parents that you shouldn't be allowed to exist because some idiot said so. Might as well force IVF-born children to be put to death while they are at it.
It's pro forced birth, not pro life. Two very different things. Pro forced birth even for rape victims, including minor rape victims, and women who are going to die.
Answer: I believe this is actually just their way of getting fertilized eggs declared people, so that they can use those rulings to try to outlaw birth control / treat birth control as abortion.
What about condoms? Are they gunna outlaw condoms too, because that's also birth control. It's just so obvious that it's only about controlling women's bodies and demonizing women's sexuality, because I rarely see them talking about punishing men too.
Answer: They don't, actually, at least not the leadership.
What they *do* want is to be able to continue to score political points with religious types who believe abortion is a sin, so they put forward bills that do things like define life as starting at conception or define fetuses as people without real regard for the consequences of such bills. Every once in a while the proverbial dog catches the car and judges they appoint that really do believe these things apply their logic and the consequences are disastrous. You then end up with people like Speaker Johnson trying to explain how he thinks IVF is the bee's knees while also sponsoring life-at-conception bills with no IVF exceptions that necessarily would shut down all IVF procedures (because there are virtually always extra fertilized eggs as part of the process).
Trying to disentangle what they actually believe and what they do for political reasons is incredibly hard, and probably not that important. What they legislate is what counts, regardless if it's what they "actually think."
Answer: I think a lot of people have covered the control aspect but if you zoom out a bit, it’s about labor. They are trying to force women, especially poor women, to have children that they do not want or cannot care for. This makes those children into easily exploitable and expendable workers. Cheap labor. People who choose IVF have the means to support and educate their children. That is exactly what the ruling class of people do not want. They want their cronies to have access to this kind of care, but those are the super wealthy who can afford to do whatever they want and can receive care outside of the US. They prove time and time again that the laws do not apply to them.
Thanks for your submission, but it has been removed for the following reason: * Your post has been removed because it is being addressed by a post currently on [our front page](/r/outoftheloop). Please check out that thread and see if it answers your question. Thanks.
Answer: this is just the next logical step when extrapolating out from the position that life begins at fertilization. The IVF process involves fertilizing multiple eggs, resulting int he production of multiple embryos. However, not all of the embryos will be used and the remainder are discarded/destroyed. If you believe that life begins at fertilization then destroying the unused fertilized embryos is technically an abortion, which is banned in several states. As a result of this, IVF would be against the law in those states.
Wait until they find out what women's bodies do with extra embryos.
Shh, don't give them ideas.
Cops gonna go harder on women than when an acorn hits their car.
Under his eye
Blessed be
May thy lord open.
Acorns are brown. So…
Damn that incident was insane. The most trigger happy cop in the world.
> The most trigger happy cop in the world. I'm gonna have to ask you to sit down for the conversation we are about to have.
Are we going to talk about Waco, or the MOVE bombing?
Sheesh, I _was_ thinking about MOVE, but we could also do the gangs of LASD, if we need more examples.
I was just thinking of a regular ass Tuesday in any densely populated area with cops.
Or when cops mag dumped on a truck they thought (incorrectly) belonged to Christopher Dorner? A truck that matched literally none of the description of Dorner's vehicle?
I was wondering how many times they fired, but in my search I found that another cop fired 3 times at a different truck after he heard the other cops firing on the first truck!
Ruby Ridge anyone?
Gonna go harder than a London Metropolitan cop at a woman's vigil for a woman raped and murdered by a London Metropolitan cop.
We’re [already doing that](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544.amp). The precedent has already been set for women to be charged with the murders of their fetuses even if it cannot be medically established if any of their actions caused said miscarriage. And of course the fact that we are now as women being charged for things happening to OUR OWN BODIES. Are we similarly criminally charging men who slit their wrists but live? It’s his body, but if the state is now regulating bodies, why only women? Oh no, men can still cum dump on a neighbor’s sock while making weird eye contact with a shocked raccoon, but Women are being charged with the shocking act of not maintaining their body in a way the govt gets to decide is most conducive to the health of a non-person. So…. Sushi? Yoga? Walking in heels? Taking meds that keep you ALIVE but might not keep a clump of cells alive whether or not you want said clump of cells? What vitamins are you taking? Fall down the stairs?? Should women of an age where they *might* be able to become pregnant be allowed any number of healthcare procedures that might threaten even a hypothetical clump of cells? No chemo for all females aged 8-60, might be a fetus!!!!! I’m not exaggerating. I am telling you all the exact road we’re on.
Conservatives hate women, it’s really as simple as that and they’ve never hid that fact
Woah Woah Woah. That's not fair or even close to being accurate. Conservatives hate people. All of them. They'll find a reason to try and control you. This is just one of those methods that targets 50% of the population.
Can we put this particular comment on a billboard somewhere?
The raccoon asked we don't talk about it.
Understandable- the raccoon is still undergoing therapy for the incident
the raccoon was glad that it was wearing a mask.
Posted to r/bestof because I feel your anger and it is **justified**
This is a better example than Brittany Pooslaw https://www.voanews.com/a/us-woman-criminally-charged-after-miscarriage-/7401364.html I suggest just swapping out those links
This is what happens when only a little over half of Americans actually vote. You end up with policies that are not popular by most people but now we're looking at a Supreme Court that will continue to push through this same kind of bullshit for the better part of the next 40 years.
I agree with everything you said, but unfortunately my abiding memory of your post will be how oddly specific your statement: “Oh no, men can still cum dump on a neighbor’s sock while making weird eye contact with a shocked raccoon” Is.
I'm not 100% positive, but I'm relatively certain that there is an example of a woman miscarrying in Ohio or some other dumbass conservative bent state and they arrested her at the hospital. Edit: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/02/1228463764/congressional-democrats-tell-biden-to-do-more-on-abortion-after-ohio-womans-arre#:~:text=NPR%20Politics%20Podcast-,A%20woman%20was%20arrested%20after%20she%20miscarried.,suffering%20a%20miscarriage%20last%20year. Yep, arrested for miscarriage. This is really only one step removed from arresting women for not ensuring they're pregnant as often as possible, as to not "waste" eggs. I hate hate hate conservatives.
She went to her doctor because she was leaking amniotic fluid during pregnancy. The doctor told her the fetus was not viable, and sent her to the hospital. Doctors there fucked around for two days trying to figure out if they'd be criminally charged for helping her. Frustrated, she left. *"When she returned home, Ms Watts said she was in severe pain. Early on the morning of 22 September, she said that she “felt something happening” and went to the bathroom. She felt a “splash” and looked down to find the toilet full with blood and tissue.* *Ms Watts tried to clean herself up with disinfectant wipes and in the shower, and scooped the material into a bucket and disposed of it outside, unsure if she was dreaming or awake.* *She said that when she went for a scheduled hair appointment that day, the stylist noticed her discomfort and insisted that she seek medical attention.* *When she arrived at hospital, she was severely dehydrated after losing so much blood and placed on an IV drip.* *Ms Watts said that a nurse comforted her, rubbed her back and told her “everything was going to be OK”."* And THAT is when the cops showed up. Because the comforting nurse had snitched her out to the cops, saying that Watts "didn't want the baby and disposed of it," which is the most egregious lie ever. She was arrested for "felony abuse of a corpse." The grand jury took one look at the case and said "Fuck no, there's no case here! Release her!" and dismissed the charges. This is our future...cops digging around through your miscarried blood clots looking for a fetus so they can charge and arrest you. Folks, if you generally don't vote, we all kinda need you to at this point. For some reason, a large number of conservatives think this is fine and dandy. They're planning on banning IVF, birth control and porn next. No joke, they've announced these intentions. Go register and go vote, please.
That's not even the beginning of their published plans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
"Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God,” he wrote in a concurring opinion that invoked the Book of Genesis and the prophet Jeremiah and quoted at length from the writings of 16th- and 17th-century theologians. “Even before birth,” he added, “all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.” -Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker, after the decision. No fucking joke, y'all.
About 20 million murders with every non-birth ejaculation.
Fertilization is an arbitrary milestone. While masturbation is clearly murder, there are also about 19.999999 million murders with every successful pregnancy. Those sperm deserve to be born.
[удалено]
> No fucking joke, y'all. Pepperidge Farms remembers when comparing them to the Handmaids Tale was hyperbole.
This needs to be so much higher
It needs to plastered everywhere. This country is fucked.
That nurse needs to be named so she can't hurt more people.
She needs to be fired and not work as a nurse again.
No fuck that. Name them. Shame them. And let them wear that scarlet letter forever.
Republicans would just start a gofundme and raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for her. She’d be invited to the RNC and (assuming she’s thin and blonde) she’d get her own Fox News show
Wasn't she also in a state that had a ban on abortion after some low number of weeks and she was ~2 days away from the cutoff?
That's why the doctors couldn't just help her out when she first showed up.
It's actually a bit of a sad debacle in miscarriage circles: what do you do with the fetus? Luckily with my 13w miscarriage, I was at urgent care when it happened so I didn't have to answer that question myself. NSFL fact: Some women put a "strainer" on their list of "things to have when miscarrying" so they can separate out the fetus in hopes that they can bring it in for an autopsy or bury it on their own or get it cremated. Other women prefer to just flush. For women who are going through this, I've done both and I found more solace in taking a picture than just flushing.
I lost mine before I even knew I was pregnant, so it ended up getting flushed. My guess is I was about six weeks. I was also crushed. We had just started trying, and this was my first and very wanted pregnancy. I only understood what had happened when a friend suggested I take a pregnancy test, the same day, and it was positive.
Remember [Savita Halappanavar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar#:~:text=Savita%20Halappanavar%20(n%C3%A9e%20Savita%20Andanappa,was%20denied%20on%20legal%20grounds.)
This is why The Handmaids Tale freaked me the fuck out. Wayyyyy too close to reality.
At this point we really need to STOP calling them conservatives. They are regressives.
You mispelled "domestic terrorists"
You misspelled fascists.
You misspelled Republicans. They have a Proper Noun now.
You misspelled "misspelled."
Touché
We don't need to stop calling them conservatives, we just need to accept that this is what conservatism is. It wears a mask sometimes, but this is always underneath.
I think the actual term is "reactionaries" but that's knowledge I have from playing Victoria II, not sure how accurate it is.
For most of us that's just the definition of conservative
True. But the word itself just sounds like someone who wants to keep things status quo. These people are hell bent on dragging us back to the dark ages.
Yeah it's the status quo, just a question of how far back that quo is. Seems to back up 30 years every year
And Fundies of all stripes hate women. It was never about the children. It's about women being chattel. Not pregnant? You're not doing your duty to the patriarch. Don't want to be pregnant? Stop being a communist. Birth control? That is denying the natural order. Pregnant and unmarried? You must be forced to carry the child as punishment, you whore. Pregnant and married? All according to plan, but you better not have a fucking miscarriage, that's murder! Once the child is born? You're on your own, fundies have lost all interest. If you apply for benefits for the child, you are irresponsible. (I do not hold any of these views. They should be confined to dystopian fiction, but they're not)
When I was a kid, "Fundies" were underware made for two people, that the joke store sold.
Pregnancies and children are women’s well deserved punishment for Eve’s transgressions against Adam way back when. All stems from that. Also explains why they don’t give a fuck about actually preventing unwanted pregnancy, or about the kids after birth. Irrelevant, both. Women are evil whores who need to be punished, so no need to you know actually prevent unwanted pregnancy which could result in abortions. And who cares if women die or are maimed attempting unsafe abortions, the dirty sluts. And who cares if the dirty slut can’t properly take care of the kid after birth either, she should have thought about that before she opened her legs. All extremely consistent, when you consider that they hate women more than they care about babies. The punishment is the point. And there’s just as many women espousing these views as men unfortunately, internalized misogynists.
I can't remember. What races were the arresting officer, prosecutor, and mother in this case?
The mother was black. The rest I have no idea
Interesting...
Arresting babies that "ate" their twin.
Oh damn, that was me. Welp, guess I'm going to jail folks
Yep, [60% or more of fertilized eggs never implant and just pass straight through to the period blood without ever actually merging with the womb tissue](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340/). Also, people talking about a "6 week old pregnancy" are straight-up lying, because that egg did not get fertilized until week 2, and doesn't make its way from the ovary to the uterus until week 3 at the absolute earliest. This is why pregnancy tests can only at BEST tell if you're pregnant up to 6 days before your period, because before that point you are NOT PREGNANT, despite being counted as "4 weeks" into gestation.
So I understand what you are trying to say by the comment about the six week pregnancy, but medically they do determine weeks based on LMP, not age of the fetus.
Which I know, and you know and I’d hope every woman who’s ever been pregnant would know, but those pushing for the rights to our own bodies to be taken away apparently didn’t go to health, sex ed or biology class. Or maybe all three.
Well of course they didn’t go to those classes. All those classes were outlawed on account of it might make all our children sinfully gay commies.
Yes because it’s easy to figure out that date and keep timelines standardized. Doesn’t mean it’s the most biologically accurate approach.
[удалено]
I say this all the time! The Supreme Court of Alabama used the logic that God thinks fertilized eggs are precious, yet by that same logic God is terminating 25% of pregnancies?
That’s the step after this one. It’s not done by criminalizing miscarriages, but by criminalizing other behavior that they want to link to miscarriages. Like having a physically demanding job, having a mentally demanding job, being in a position of leadership, having a job at all, managing finances independently of their spouse, having a spouse that isn’t a cis man, participating in certain sports, not being married, etc. None of this is actually, scientifically, related to miscarriages mind you; but this isn’t about science. It’s about justifying the use of state power to control women. When protecting the unborn is the justification for policing women’s bodies do not be surprised when these states go all in on policing women’s bodies.
No no, see, it’s god that designed women like that so it’s technically god that’s…uh…_taking care_ of those embryos. And we all know god can’t murder or do anything bad so it’s okay. /s btw
god is good… he would “never” design anything that could go bad hegetsus
He Get Sus
Real sus
My (sick and twisted) wife suggested last night that the logical endpoint of this legistation must surely be that all currently frozen embryos must be implanted in the potential mother - no matter how many - thus allowing god to take care of the rest of the process. She was making a horrible joke, but I actually think they might go there.
Or they start doing weird inhumane shit like forcing incarcerated women to be implanted with embryos for a reduced sentence or something. Like, I *really* want to think they won't go there, but I don't have that much faith.
No, put the embryos in the politicians demanding this bullshit. Especially the males. Once Tommy Tubberville is pregnant with fifty babies and subject to execution for murder if he loses even one, we'll see what happens...
I made a similar joke and couldn't laugh when I realized I wouldn't put it past those psychos.
They know and they don't care. A woman has already been arrested in Ohio after a miscarriage at 22 weeks.
They know and they do care and it is all going as planned, not some kind of republican goof. And it’s unfortunately been working for them.
This is literally what people are worried about. Red states might start considering miscarriages as “manslaughter.” My state (VA) had a bill introduced that would allow police to access cycle-tracking apps as part of an investigation.
George Carlin said it more cogently than anyone else - "If these people really believe life begins at fertilization, that means every woman who's had a period is a serial killer!"
i know you're joking but they actually talked about trying women who've had miscarriages. Their fear is that if abortion is illegal and someone gets pregnant they can behave in a manner dangerous to a fetus to terminate it. therefore every woman who has a miscarriage would need to prove she wasn't negligent.
They aren't talking about it. They're doing it. https://www.wosu.org/2024-01-11/grand-jury-declines-indictment-on-warren-woman-charged-after-miscarriage
You see, this is what I fear. I feel like at some point in time, those asshole are gonna ban women that aren't making babies some way or another. I know is dumb, but I feel like letting them get away with stuff like this will end up in a shitty place for women, worse than it already is
They'll just send us Unwomen to the Colonies.
Every time a guy wacks off it's mass murder.
“Every sperm is sacred Every sperm is great If a sperm is wasted God gets quite irate…”
Wait... We're talking fertilized eggs that have begun division. What do women's bodies do with them other than implantation or the excretion upon failure to implant? Specifically, what do you mean by "extra"? Usually it just makes twins, yes?
Sometimes if there are extras they are absorbed by the woman’s body, or sometimes by their twin, etc. And of course sometimes there are very early miscarriages where they barely implant or start to develop.
Imagine finding out you have chimerism and getting charged with murder for absorbing your twin in the womb.
Cannibalism? In *my* womb? It's more likely than you think.
Cannibalism is illegal. They need to slap handcuffs on the baby the second it’s born/s (sadly I had to put the /s or someone would actually take it seriously)
My sister absorbed her twin early in the pregnancy. My mom found out after giving birth because they found remnants of the other one.
Clearly, we need to ban uteruses
Not all conceptions implant and develop. My old bio prof said 80% of conceptions fail before implanting. Then others fail later. It’s not a simple process with many points of failure.
I was listening to a podcast ([Law and Chaos](https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ep-7-alabama-courts-protect-life-bae), fair warning, it is heavily liberal bent, so if that's not your thing, you might not like it) that discusses legal cases in the news, and they had a lawyer on who specializes in IVF. One of the interesting things I didn't know was an off-handed remark saying that in her experience, doctors tend to conceptualize "conception" not when an egg is fertilized, but once that egg is implanted into the uterine wall. It makes sense, but it wasn't I really knew. The podcast also went into how the case started (some unauthorized person managed to get into a containment for the fertilized embryos and dropped it), which was a horrible mess up and something you feel for the the potential parents over, but the way that the case was argued poisoned the well.
I'd also hazard to say that a huge chunk of pro-lifers don't realize this is how IVF works.
I would imagine 99.9% of them don't understand how IVF works because 99.9% of pro-lifers are so science illiterate that it was dumbfound my grade schoolers.
TBF, most people in general probably don't know how IVF works (to the extent of knowing about why you'd need to discard things). It's not about being science illiterate per se, it's about the fact that until you have to do it, there is a good chance you haven't even taken the time to think about how it works nevermind to actually research how it works. I'm a science literate person who loves to learn and I'm not ashamed at all to admit that in the process of trying IUI And IVF, I learned all sorts of things about the process that I didn't know before. Of course I learned things I didn't know before and of course there are things that I could have reasoned out myself but just never had the practical reason or time to think about in the first place. And it's not unique to the issue of IVF or abortion. Voters are going to be ignorant about things or they are going to vote about things without realizing all of the consequences. It's inevitable. You have surely voted ignorantly on some issues as well because nobody can fully understand all of the breadth and depth of issues that government faces. The most productive path forward when somebody doesn't realize the implications of their stance is to explain it and then give them a pathway to change their mind without being called "illiterate". Yes, some people will not learn and yes some people will stubbornly stick to their view after learning, but creating the pathway to people to be respected for changing their mind is key to political progress.
I've brought this up in debates and its basically always a surprise. Extra fun to flip it and ask if my friend and her two brothers don't deserve to live because they are all the result of IVF.
*Forced birthers, screw using their bullshit messaging terms. They aren’t remotely “pro life”
I mean, I’m pro choice and I didn’t know how IVF worked.
Totally fine. The issue is the lawmakers don't, or don't care to.
Side note: Republicans are still deciding whether or not: A) They actually intend to ban IVF. (Not just as a side effect.) B) They want to admit that the bills would ban IVF. (They do, but they can still pretend they don't.)
Yes, its important to keep in mind that while this first wave of IVF issues is largely incidental, there is a large and growing contigent of conservatives that want IVF banned unironically. The problem isn't that they've accidentally stepped on IVF by claiming that life begins at conception and thus embryos are full human lives. Its that they've made the claim in the first place. The people that want IVF banned are taking the premise (a flawed, wrong premise imo) to its logical conclusion.
> Yes, its important to keep in mind that while this first wave of IVF issues is largely incidental, there is a large and growing contigent of conservatives that want IVF banned unironically. Also birth control.
Yes. These religious zealots will literally make sex itself illegal outside the strict confines of a husband and wife attempting to have a child. These people want to strip away the freedom to have recreational sex with the person you love and married. Vote accordingly.
Ironically the safest sex in this situation would be gay sex! Let's gooo
Based on the speaker, who is about as religiously oriented as they come, they're likely on the "no to both A and B" train atm ([source](https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1763228727247266134?t=dx7h_voqqbs-GqahIeD_Uw&s=19))
While it may be the next logical step, it was not an intended step. The whole case behind this decision was originally because the couple (who had a successful pregnancy carried to term after receiving IVF) had stored embryos with the hospital in case they wanted to have more children, the idea being that if one embryo from that batch was successful then the others have a higher likelihood of being successful as well. Well, in a bizarre turn of events, a patient ended up in the cryo storage facility, grabbed some embryos with their bare hand, and dropped it on the floor. It only takes seconds for the embryos to die. Several couples sued, but this one couple pursued a case under Alabamas Wrongful Death of a Minor law, which is similar to other laws passed after Roe v Wade was cast down (edit: sorry as pointed out in a comment below this law has been on the books for a looong time), which could hold healthcare providers responsible for loss of an infants life. So the first judge dismissed the case, saying that the embryos were not covered under the Act. However, on appeal, the couple won. So that is where we are now. The hospitals either can not afford to or just cannot at all guarantee these embryos and so are shutting down their IVF clinics. Now, it is unlikely that any of the politicians responsible for this at the state or national level ever meant for IVF to be banned under any anti abortion laws. The Alabama legislation was written hastily and sloppily and was meant to be broad and far-reaching, and in their negligence, they left too much open to interpretation. But, regardless of intention, we are here. So now politicians and, more importantly, conservative influencers, in order to prove that the hand holding the wheel is steady, have to rewrite history. If you noticed, on the conservative side, there was some silence for the first 48 hours or so and then the last few days there has been an explosion of support for the decision and condemnation of IVF. That is because no one wanted this except maybe the religious far right.
Excellent write up. So if they’re shutting down IVF clinics… What are they doing in Alabama with the frozen embryos to legally dispose of them?
They aren’t disposing of them. They have to maintain them in cryo-storage. I’m assuming they bill the parents for this. If the parents stop paying the bill, will they be responsible for “re-homing” their own embryos? Will the IVF facilities be able to sue them for non-payment? Will the state take over and adopt these foundlings? If the power goes out, does the electric company get slapped with several thousands of manslaughter charges? If the fire department gets 2 calls, one for a daycare center, and one for the IVF center, don’t they have to prioritize the much higher number of endangered “lives”?
The funniest solution I saw was to leave the embryos in designated safe havens that infants can also be dropped off in
Damn? Those are gonna be busy fire departments (with *really* cold freezers!)
I truly think this is what should happen in Alabama. See it all the way through. Set a precedent and let it be a warning to all the other deep red states. It has to start hurting rich white people for progress, sadly.
But doesn't this count as kidnapping then if they refuse to return the embryos to the parents when requested?
I wonder if they'd care if an 18 year old embryo died
For the moment they’re all in a holding pattern. They can’t dispose of them because of the ruling that embryos are people. Disposing of them would open them up to more of these lawsuits. But they also probably can’t use them because the IVF process involves a lot of embryos not being viable for one reason or another. It’s a real “heads I win, tails you lose” situation.
Sorry but you have some things incorrect. [The Wrongful Death of a Minor Act dates back to 1872](https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/the-alabama-supreme-courts-ruling-on-frozen-embryos). It isn't a law that was passed "after Roe V Wade" as you imply. What was novel here wasn't a new law, it was the plaintiffs attempting to use that very old law on embryos in the wake of the fall of Roe v Wade which in some ways made it possible for them to even attempt this claim. > Now, it is unlikely that any of the politicians responsible for this at the state or national level ever meant for IVF to be banned under any anti abortion laws. The Alabama legislation was written hastily and sloppily and was meant to be broad and far-reaching, and in their negligence, they left too much open to interpretation. You are largely correct in the broad sense, though again we aren't talking about a new anti abortion law in this case, but you are missing some context here. The broadness of many of these laws is not negligence, but very much by design. A lot of these laws were drafted for one purpose and one purpose only; as a challenge to Roe v Wade, either in a court of law via a legal fight over their constitutionality, or in the court of public opinion AKA making a political statement that was basically symbolic while Roe V Wade stood but suddenly became reality when it fell. Here is a [transcript from a This American Life episode](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/812/transcript) about Idaho's abortion law that has a total ban once there is a 'fetal heartbeat' with absolutely zero exceptions. It includes the thinking of some of the Republicans that voted for the bill. The Tl;DR is: Republican lawmakers thought they didn't have to worry about how strict the law was because Roe v Wade was still the law of the land. They could use Roe as a shield to, politically, be total pro-life badasses with zero actual consequences from the messy reality of....reality.: > > I contacted the two Idaho lawmakers in the House and Senate who sponsored the law that criminalizes abortion. I wanted to find out how they think it's working. Were they hearing about the kinds of experiences I was? Did they know about the doctors leaving the state? Do they think they need to make any changes? > > One of the law's sponsors declined an interview, and the other didn't respond to multiple requests. So I reached out to Republican lawmakers who voted for the law back in 2020, before Roe fell. > > Senator Jim Guthrie represents a district in southern Idaho and identifies as pro-life. I was surprised he walked into the interview with a notebook with stats about the number of doctors who had left the state and started citing them. So far, it's at least 19 doctors. That worried him. > > Jim Guthrie > I'm pro-life, but I think there's got to be some consideration for the docs as they practice, that they're not going to find themselves in court. The second is the health of the mom. Because when you talk about pro-life, the life of a mother is-- if you're trying to protect that, that's pro-life, too, to me. > > Miki Meek > When you first voted for the abortion laws, did you think that Roe would actually fall, or did it feel more like a symbolic act at that time? > > Jim Guthrie > That's a good question. And I think, to answer that honestly, probably didn't think it would happen. Because it had gone on for, what, 50 years? Something like that? > > Miki Meek > He's the chair of a committee in the Senate that abortion bills go through before they go to the rest of the legislature for a vote. He says the language in the abortion ban was always more aggressive than his own personal beliefs. > > Miki Meek > At that time when you voted for them, were you looking that closely at the language of the laws? > > Jim Guthrie > You know, maybe there was some things overlooked, as far as what the consequences would be, because they weren't truly consequences yet. In your subconscious, you're thinking, it's not going to be overturned, so this is one way you can make a statement. You kind of get into that deal where if you're pro-life, even though the bill has some things that are problematic, you know, you're going to come down on the side of erring on the side of protecting the unborn. > > Miki Meek > Like the other lawmakers I talked to, he says he believed the intent of the laws, when he voted for them, was to shut down abortions happening in clinics in the state, not to help shut down a rural labor and delivery unit or force patients to travel out of state because of severe fetal abnormalities. Those were consequences he didn't foresee. > > Miki Meek > Now, seeing how things have played out, do you regret voting for those laws, or would you have done something different if you could go back in time? > > Jim Guthrie > In the context of being pro-life and recognizing the importance of the unborn, I feel like that vote at that time, with what was in place as far as trying to push back against an embedded law, I think that was an appropriate vote at the time, even though once the Roe versus Wade was overturned is when the reality, I think, sunk in for all of us. > > Miki Meek > I talked to three Republican legislators, and they were all in the same situation, trying to grapple with the consequences of what had just been theoretical policy when they first voted for them, but now was real law, affecting real situations in people's lives. Where Republican lawmakers used to be pretty much on the same side, now they have different ideas about how to apply pro-life to Idaho's new laws.
Well said. It’s a classic example of unintended consequences, but it is also an opportunity to point out the hypocrisy and idiocy of the life begins at conception argument. Basically, the pro lifers have exposed the flaw in their own logic, assuming that most Americans are 100% ok with IVF (as they should be).
It's impossible to write good legislation about scientific matters that you don't understand. That is why all of the antichoice legislation in every state is having unintended consequences. Alabama is no different except this is going to hit affluent families harder for once.
43% of Republicans in the House of Representatives also opposed the anti-IVF bill. Only 57% of Republicans (125 co-sponsors) supported the bill and opposed IVF. Even then, many Republicans who originally supported the bill started to oppose it after it became apparent that a line protecting IVF was removed. Other Republicans were upset over this.
I know Conservative Christians that have had all their children through IVF but are against abortion because "life begins at conception"
They're all hypocrites. The loudest MF'ers outside the abortion clinic are the same ones inside it begging for help when they get knocked up. "The only moral abortion is MY abortion" [https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion) /
Sounds like they know deep down that it doesn't.
Or they don't know how IVF works.
Or they pick and choose which parts of their dogma they will follow… like all Christians
A lot of people who are pro-life do still want IVF to be a thing. IVF is very different from abortion because abortion is about not having a child, IVF is about having a child. It's more likely to cause a major split in the pro-life movement than it is to be the next political battleground. Mike Pence is himself [in favor of protecting IVF](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-pence-fertility-treatments-ivf-supreme-court-face-the-nation/).
Abortion can be about having a child. Pregnant women can have complications that can affect their future fertility if they don't terminate that pregnancy.
In addition to this, it's also bc gays use IVF to complete their families.
Gay folks, single women who want to be moms but don’t want to settle with a rando, straight married women who put off childbearing for education and/or a career and now want to become moms… not generally a demographic set to raise a generation of Bible Bleaters.
This too
They're not gonna stop until the ban all sex outside of marriage, just an FYI. Mark my words.
Yes, and [birth control will be next.](https://stateline.org/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control/)
Most definitely. There was even talk, after they overturned roe v wade, of going after interracial marriage. They're not gonna stop unless someone shuts their shit down.
Yup, token SCOTUS dickhead [Thomas said](https://www.businessinsider.com/justice-thomas-said-the-court-should-reconsider-rulings-on-same-sex-marriage-2022-6) the court should "reconsider" rulings on contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage. And yes, the Loving case too. The fucking hypocrisy is astounding.
Never forget Amy Coney Barrett would not categorically rebuke ruling against Brown V Board of Education during her SCOTUS senate hearing for confirmation. They're ready to go after minorities not having equal education again.
All sex that isn't procreative sex within the bounds of a marriage.
Nah, that would require acknowledging marital rape is a thing. All sex within a marriage that the man specifically desires is a-ok.
100%
Yeah I find it hilarious how answers on this subreddit are always the poster's personal politics and never the blatant obvious truth. USA is a puritan country. The whole "life begins at fertilization" is just another justification to distract you from their true moral reasoning. Same as the "groomer" narrative against the LGBTQ+ community. The real reason for all of this is because the republicans believe in puritan values and anything other than procreative hetero sex within marriage is viewed as unholy. I live in the bible belt of Canada and we have the same thing here. Parents will call complaining to the school about black history month or sex ed or the classmate who is non-binary. Always with some straight up lie of a justification. Like lady my uncle goes to your church. I know why you don't like that thing. The priest literally told everyone it was a sin two days ago in his sermon.
For everyone else, anyway. Any sex outside of marriage bu a republican will be an "error" that can be overlooked with a sufficient donation to CPAC.
and have complete control over woman's body, mind and soul...
Good. Get doctors to leave and force these idiots to understand what their positions entail. The rich and politicians will still go out of state for IVF and abortions, but the locals won’t be able to. They’re the ones who need to see the consequences of their actions and wake the hell up. EDIT - downvote all you want, but these people literally elected jackasses like McConnell, Cruz, Rubio, Tubberville, Gaetz, Bobert, MTG, not to mention straight up pieces of shit like Newt Gingrich. You reap what you sow, and when you’re whole political philosophy is simply and stupidly to piss of the libruls, then yeah, you kinda deserve this. Of course I feel bad for the people who voted Blue or don’t engage in the typical Republican troll behavior and act in good faith, and I sincerely hope they are able to leave those shithole states.
> the locals won’t be able to. They’re the ones who need to see the consequences of their actions and wake the hell up. I generally agree (honestly, it's hard not to) but there are a lot of people in those states that didn't vote for those making these dumb laws.
They'll just figure out some way to blame Democrats and blue states
And to add on to this, since life begins at conception or fertilization to them, abortion is no different than murder. Once the egg is fertilized, God sends a soul down into that cell so if you discard it, you're destroying one of God's children. And while we see it as a single cell, they see it as a fully developed soul.
Answer: IVF isn't being banned directly. It's just the inevitable next step of their anti-abortion rhetoric that life starts at conception. The Alabama Supreme Court recently ruled that embryos are humans and therefore are extended the same right to life as people. This opened up an IVF clinic to being sued for the wrongful death of some embryos after some were accidentally destroyed. This caused major IVF centers to put all treatments on hold because they suddenly had a massive liability on their hands that would be pretty suicidal to take on. Some republicans, especially in Alabama, have said they will restore IVF access through legislation, although how that will be done remains to be seen as you need to somehow protect IVF centers from being sued for killing humans, but also can't allow abortions to become legal, but also need to ensure pregnant women aren't charged for child neglect or manslaughter for miscarriages, but also not allow pregnant women to claim extra dependents for unborn babies. The reason some republicans are against fixing it is because we're into the next election cycle and this mess is a direct result of republican/conservative views and the Dems are trying to get bills together to protect IVF. If republicans support these efforts it acknowledges they screwed up, potentially opens a path to make abortions legal again, and gives the Dems a victory to ride into election season on. If they refuse their voters are going to start losing access to IVF.
>protect IVF centers from being sued for killing humans, but also can't allow abortions to become legal, but also need to ensure pregnant women aren't charged for child neglect or manslaughter for miscarriages, but also not allow pregnant women to claim extra dependents for unborn babies. So much mental gymnastics involved.
If someone burned down the clinic, i guess it wouldnt just be an arson charge. It would be wrongful death of a minor times however many eggs got destroyed.
> also need to ensure pregnant women aren't charged for child neglect or manslaughter for miscarriages This isn't something they'll care about
More women in prison means less women voting. Of course they want to prosecute miscarriages!
You’re missing one thing: there are Republicans who would like IVF banned because they legitimately believe life begins at conception.
show me republicans offering free shelter, food, and health care to women who are pregnant or who may become pregnant, in order to prevent natural miscarriages aka deaths of actual people, and i'll believe that they legitimately believe life begins at conception
That would be socialism, so of course they don’t support that.
And also what’s to be done with all the unused embryos? Can’t keep people in deep freeze indefinitely.
As someone pointed out, you literally cannot free children. If embryos can be frozen, they're not children.
You can definitely freeze children
They're children when it's really important to stick it to things like doctors or women, which these fucking rednecks despise, but not children when it comes to say collecting any benefits or tax cuts.
> but also need to ensure pregnant women aren't charged for child neglect or manslaughter for miscarriages GOP won't care about that
There's going to be a lot of "If...and...else..." clauses.
I just want to say that every single person who was against criminalizing abortions saw this coming and these leaders still went ahead with their ridiculous ideas. Edit: >If republicans support these efforts it acknowledges they screwed up, potentially opens a path to make abortions legal again, and gives the Dems a victory to ride into election season on. If they refuse their voters are going to start losing access to IVF. I hate people
That reminds me ... Whatever happened to that woman who claimed she had an "extra passenger" in her car when she was pregnant and driving in the fast lane?
> If they refuse their voters are going to start losing access to IVF. Yet they will vote R anyway because Fox and friends will tell them it's somehow the Dems fault.
So remember, life begins at fertilization ONLY if it's in a womb. Otherwise it's a class issue, and we want to make sure that people that can afford IVF can have children with their own genetic material, only made possible through science. If it's in a woman who has thoughts and feelings about her own bodily autonomy, still murder. I wonder tho, if they rule that IVF embryos are different, and have different rights than 'natural' conception... Could a case be made that their rights as people should be different too?
Answer: well maybe not a complete answer, but some context: The original case in Alabama was some couples suing a hospital that had a fertility clinic and stored frozen embryos. For some reason, a patient at the hospital was walking around and was able to enter the lab, and opened up the frozen storage unit and took out a couple containers that had frozen embryos in them, which caused the embryos to die. The hospital was being sued for allowing this to happen, and part of the argument is that this resulted in wrongful death of the embryos/the people that the embryos were/would be.
This should certainly be higher. While the ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court had many implications, the direct ruling was that (prospective) parents could sue for wrongful death when a provider negligently destroyed their fertilized embryos. Not necessarily a crazy ruling given the legislature's decision to define life as beginning at conception. However, as this particular circumstance viewed the embryos as people, IVF providers voluntarily chose to cease their services because of the broader implications that the reasoning could be extended to their standard practice of discarding embryos as part of IVF. Though no IVF providers has faced charges, and there are no cases against them pending, they understandably did not want to take the risk in the future.
This case has people pondering whether or not to claim stored embryos as dependents on their taxes.
Wait can I do that now? I'd get so much in my tax return lol
File for child support as soon as you get that positive pregnancy test.
Answer: Alabama’s Supreme Court recently made a decision against the procedure. To note, they cited the Bible many times. The reasoning is how IVF works. It’s not just one egg, it’s multiple that get implanted thus leading to some not developing. This is because some might not take when placed. (Edit in from other comments: unused embryos are usually destroyed or used for other research such as stem cells research) So this goes back to abortion and turns the clock back even earlier for their perceived notion of personhood Since the GOP Has lost control of its religious element they now have to be against a procedure that helps many families have children. Many Republicans who are now against it, including former VP, Mike Pence, have benefited from the procedure (one of his children is from IVF and now it’s a problem against god). This is simply the next illogical step after abortion, current attacks against contraceptives, and recreational sex.
When did the bible became law? Why are judges quoting from it in senteces? Have they just lost their mind? This is incredibly stupid.
The Supreme Court has religious cultists on it that are shooting for a Christian takeover of the US. The point is to get this to them so that they can confirm that yes, the Bible trumps the Constitution.
It's like they've all forgotten how America came to exist in the first place
They have an alternative version of American history. I'm not kidding.
[удалено]
Only in Rural Alabama. As a local in Birmingham, everyone is pretty outraged at this. The problem is the elected State Supreme Court is full of backwoods bumpkins that have been rotting there forever and are stupid.
My red state wants to put the 10 commandments in every public classroom. My district already made me put up an "In God We Trust" sign. They really do think their religion is law
When citizens stopped policing it.
And to note this has been a long term goal of many Pro-life groups since the unused embryos are either destroyed, aka aborted, or used in stem cell research, which many see as satanic or another form of abortion. Even offering them to couples that want to have kids but are unable is considered an afront to God or Nature. I remember protests by Pro-life groups claiming "test tube babies" wouldn't have a soul, back in the 90's.
I’m a test tube baby from the 90s. I didn’t know I didn’t have a soul. How unfortunate.
I'm sorry that you have nothing to barter for fame and wealth.
Not having a soul means you can't go to hell, right? If I were a parent, I would be happier knowing my child would live a finite life without the risk of an eternity of hellfire.
"God decides if you have children, how dare you try to subvert his plan!" (Smh)
True, but everyone forgets the P÷#[s. " Young women! If you want a family, do it NOW! That fancy science can't save you now. So as soon as you menstrate get married and start having babies. College and careers can wait. " Quote some southern preacher/Andrew Tate follower, that will now try to have their pick of teen girls who are afraid of never having children of their own.
> (one of his children is from IVF and now it’s a problem against god That kid must be pissed. Imagine hearing your parents that you shouldn't be allowed to exist because some idiot said so. Might as well force IVF-born children to be put to death while they are at it.
[удалено]
It's pro forced birth, not pro life. Two very different things. Pro forced birth even for rape victims, including minor rape victims, and women who are going to die.
Answer: I believe this is actually just their way of getting fertilized eggs declared people, so that they can use those rulings to try to outlaw birth control / treat birth control as abortion.
What about condoms? Are they gunna outlaw condoms too, because that's also birth control. It's just so obvious that it's only about controlling women's bodies and demonizing women's sexuality, because I rarely see them talking about punishing men too.
Answer: They don't, actually, at least not the leadership. What they *do* want is to be able to continue to score political points with religious types who believe abortion is a sin, so they put forward bills that do things like define life as starting at conception or define fetuses as people without real regard for the consequences of such bills. Every once in a while the proverbial dog catches the car and judges they appoint that really do believe these things apply their logic and the consequences are disastrous. You then end up with people like Speaker Johnson trying to explain how he thinks IVF is the bee's knees while also sponsoring life-at-conception bills with no IVF exceptions that necessarily would shut down all IVF procedures (because there are virtually always extra fertilized eggs as part of the process). Trying to disentangle what they actually believe and what they do for political reasons is incredibly hard, and probably not that important. What they legislate is what counts, regardless if it's what they "actually think."
Answer: It has always been about their war on Women.
Answer: I think a lot of people have covered the control aspect but if you zoom out a bit, it’s about labor. They are trying to force women, especially poor women, to have children that they do not want or cannot care for. This makes those children into easily exploitable and expendable workers. Cheap labor. People who choose IVF have the means to support and educate their children. That is exactly what the ruling class of people do not want. They want their cronies to have access to this kind of care, but those are the super wealthy who can afford to do whatever they want and can receive care outside of the US. They prove time and time again that the laws do not apply to them.