The whole Alabama/IVF situation is an example of the number of absurd logical culs-de-sac you get into when you start with premises that are, at least to many of us, not only absurd but which at least a number of these premises supporters don’t even entirely believe. As noted below, Alabama has now passed a law which leaves in place the idea that embryos are full people in the state but gives people immunity from prosecution or civil liability if you kill one of these people.
If I were a pro-fetal personhood litigant I would go right back into court and challenge the idea that the legislature has the ability to offer people a free pass for killing a certain class of person. I’m sure there are other more technical routes to challenging this law. But this strikes me as a pretty straightforward and valid one. Needless to say, I don’t buy the premise of the fetal personhood argument. But if you do, how can this not be true? Could the legislature provide immunity for killing kids under ten? Or anyone out past 10 p.m.? This sounds like exactly the kind of action courts reject on basic equal protection-like or arbitrariness grounds.
Presumably, Alabama Republicans are hoping that the state Supreme Court applies some extrajudicial reasoning and just backs the F off from creating any more problems. But that seems like a degree of wishful thinking.
>>> Read full article>>>
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source : Talking Points Memo – https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/can-this-new-alabama-law-possibly-stand-judicial-scrutiny