Alabama's LePage decision, the future of ex vivo embryos, and more.

IF 2.4 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Journal of Law and the Biosciences Pub Date : 2026-04-20 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1093/jlb/lsag013
Henry T Greely
{"title":"Alabama's <i>LePage</i> decision, the future of <i>ex vivo</i> embryos, and more.","authors":"Henry T Greely","doi":"10.1093/jlb/lsag013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In February 2024 the Alabama Supreme Court held that the destruction of frozen embryos stored at an <i>in vitro</i> fertilization (IVF) center could be the basis of a wrongful death suit by the prospective parents under Alabama law. The opinion caused a bipartisan uproar that led to its effective overturning by the Alabama legislature and governor 19 days after it was issued. The Alabama Supreme Court's unexpected intervention in IVF shows the surprising ways a mishap in a clinic can trigger a collision of originalist jurisprudence, judicial rhetoric, political mobilization, and media amplification in our post-<i>Dobbs</i> world. A closer look reminds us of how variable court systems and laws are across the USA, as well as the complex motivations of patients and others involved in assisted reproduction. It also shows how state court decisions, perhaps through intentional provocations, can reverberate in the national debate, leading to overreactions, some far beyond their jurisdictions' borders. Plus, in context, beyond the online quips, the political soundbites, and the media articles, it is a fascinating tale and all of that from a case that could easily have been decided, in either direction, as a low-key interpretation of a unique Alabama statute, without broad consequences.</p>","PeriodicalId":56266,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","volume":"13 1","pages":"lsag013"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13092730/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsag013","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In February 2024 the Alabama Supreme Court held that the destruction of frozen embryos stored at an in vitro fertilization (IVF) center could be the basis of a wrongful death suit by the prospective parents under Alabama law. The opinion caused a bipartisan uproar that led to its effective overturning by the Alabama legislature and governor 19 days after it was issued. The Alabama Supreme Court's unexpected intervention in IVF shows the surprising ways a mishap in a clinic can trigger a collision of originalist jurisprudence, judicial rhetoric, political mobilization, and media amplification in our post-Dobbs world. A closer look reminds us of how variable court systems and laws are across the USA, as well as the complex motivations of patients and others involved in assisted reproduction. It also shows how state court decisions, perhaps through intentional provocations, can reverberate in the national debate, leading to overreactions, some far beyond their jurisdictions' borders. Plus, in context, beyond the online quips, the political soundbites, and the media articles, it is a fascinating tale and all of that from a case that could easily have been decided, in either direction, as a low-key interpretation of a unique Alabama statute, without broad consequences.

阿拉巴马州LePage案的判决,体外胚胎的未来等等。
2024年2月,阿拉巴马州最高法院裁定,根据阿拉巴马州的法律,破坏体外受精(IVF)中心保存的冷冻胚胎可以作为准父母提起非正常死亡诉讼的依据。该意见引起了两党哗然,最终在发布19天后被阿拉巴马州立法机构和州长推翻。阿拉巴马州最高法院对试管婴儿的意外干预表明,在我们这个后多布斯的世界里,诊所里的一次事故会以令人惊讶的方式引发原意主义法理学、司法修辞、政治动员和媒体放大的碰撞。仔细观察会让我们想起美国各地的法院系统和法律是多么的多变,以及患者和其他参与辅助生殖的人的复杂动机。它还表明,州法院的判决,也许是通过有意的挑衅,可以在全国辩论中产生反响,导致过度反应,有些反应远远超出了他们的管辖范围。此外,在上下文中,除了网上的讽刺、政治言论和媒体文章之外,这是一个引人入胜的故事,所有这些都可以很容易地从一个案件中得到判决,无论朝哪个方向,都可以低调地解释阿拉巴马州一项独特的法规,而不会产生广泛的后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Law and the Biosciences
Journal of Law and the Biosciences Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
35
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Law and the Biosciences (JLB) is the first fully Open Access peer-reviewed legal journal focused on the advances at the intersection of law and the biosciences. A co-venture between Duke University, Harvard University Law School, and Stanford University, and published by Oxford University Press, this open access, online, and interdisciplinary academic journal publishes cutting-edge scholarship in this important new field. The Journal contains original and response articles, essays, and commentaries on a wide range of topics, including bioethics, neuroethics, genetics, reproductive technologies, stem cells, enhancement, patent law, and food and drug regulation. JLB is published as one volume with three issues per year with new articles posted online on an ongoing basis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书