I really don't think *A LOCKED DOOR* represents such an onerous expense that it would put IVF out of business.
For many people going through IVF they have a hard time getting enough embryos to have children. If through malice or gross negligence those embryos are destroyed you are destroying their ability to have children. It is completely fair for the party who destroyed those embryos to be liable.
If your stance is "we can't define gross negligence" I think that takes things to far. Certainly, "physically secure an area with embryos" is not too high a bar.
I am one of those "crazies" that says that life begins at conception. I think we both agree that the "life begins at birth" crowd are also crazy. But drawing an arbitrary line somehwhere between conception and birth also seems kinda... arbitrary.
But, instead, I want to talk about a brilliant book by a brilliant author hwho notes that most of hwho we are is... genetic! Our hair colour, our skin colour, our personality, intelligence, etc. is genetic. And our genes are determined at... conception!
I was ME from the moment of my conception, you were YOU from the moment of YOUR conception, my daughter was HER from the moment of HER conception: Even if she didn't have eyes already, it was already determined that she would have brown eyes, even if she didn't have hair already, it was already determined that she would have brown hair, even if she didn't have a brain already, it was already determined that she would be smart and a "silly goose" (just like her daddy!), from the moment of conception.
We are US from the moment of conception. Abortion and IVF both destroy human lives. A brilliant gay black boy with an infectious smile, a funny, conscientious Asian girl and thousands more unique individuals are destroyed when someone drops that container of embryos.
So hwhat am I saying: I am unique, therefore I am? kinda... But I know hwhat you're thinking: Does that mean that an identical twin or a clone is... expendable? No. Because they're unique in their own way. They are their own organism.
So, I am against abortion and IVF. I think a lot of pro-lifers don't really think enough about IVF. But we should. I am kinda disappointed in Kay Ivey. Maybe she should watch this video: https://youtu.be/e6VYza7JE6s?si=IatEvvtANchc1dMH
Why engage in the hyperbole of saying all consumer protection is suspect. There are plenty of cases where consumer protection exists to combat a genuine market failure or because of demonstrated consumer irrationality. For instance, laws that prevent sellers from lying about the features of their product.
Look, I also think that we engage in quite a bit of overregulation but if we didn't have basic laws preventing outright fraud or the like transaction costs would likely push people towards a few big reliable sources and we'd lose much of that valuable competition.
The Problem with IVF is that it turns human Life into a Product that can be bought and sold. The truth of the industry is that it's extremely predatory, preying on millennial women who have been getting lied to their whole life about getting married and having kids young like they should, and vulnerable parents who have fertility issues by offering them a snake oil cure. The results are bad, for starters they are almost always unsuccessful, given the cost a failure rate of 80% or higher is pretty bad. And even when successful the majority of IVF kids will have all sorts of Health and Developmental issues bc at the end of the day, it's not natural. You can't just Frankenstein humans in a lab and expect their to be no consequences. The entire industry is built on a lot of empty promises and outright lies. This isn't even getting into the Ethics of IVF and how if you view life as beginning at Conception you must oppose IVF on the grounds of how it is practiced (multiple embryos at a time which many die, freezing of fertilized embryos=incarceration without a trial, Man playing God, etc) Alabama made the wrong call, they had an opportunity to eradicate the practice entirely from the state but the GOP got scared bc they recognize the Overton window has shifted the majority of their Conservative based away from Traditional Conservatism and into 1970s Liberalism.
From my understanding, IVF clinics in Alabama actually paused treatment because they suspected they might be held responsible for the accidental destruction or disposal of embryos due to the ruling. This seems like a reasonable response to a court ruling which left them potentially responsible for the death of many "minors." Not wanting be legally responsible for killing hundreds of "minors" is a reasonable response even if you are pretty confident that what you're doing is okay. Pausing treatment was a reasonable response given the situation. And so it was looking like Alabama women were going to lose access IVF and people were rightfully not happy with this. Although it may not be on account of Dobbs, I am unsure why this is all so "hysterical."
Is your belief that private actions (torts litigation specifically) are bad? If not, then isn’t removing civil liability turning off the ability to sue a bad thing unless it is a really limited civil immunity?
Just to explain why the coverage of this decision was genuinely hysterical let me note the following:
1) Quite a few states allow for wrongful death suits when someone negligently causes a woman to lose a pregnancy many at anytime after conception --including blue states like IL.
2) Letting wrongful death statutes cover unborn children is a reasonable policy choice even if you are deeply pro-choice since otherwise pregnant couples who have suffered a very real loss do to someone else's negligence wouldn't have any recourse, e.g., say your doc doesn't bother to ask if you are pregnant before giving you a medication that causes you to lose your child.
3) Once you say that the wrongful death statute covers a fetus at any point after conception it's a totally reasonable interpretation to think it covers said fetus inside or outside the womb. Indeed, it would be weird to treat them differently absent wording in the law to suggest doing so.
4) So judges in AL just reasonably applied an existing law to a novel circumstance. It didn't result in good policy but that's not the judge's job. The legislature saw that the existing law was broken and fixed it.
At no point was there any suggestion (except maybe in the batshit concurrence by one crazy judge) that this implied anything about the status of a fetus under other laws like murder. This was just the court and legislature both doing their job.
Isn't the hysteria more over the fact that our minoritarian reactionary SC will leverage this or similar cases to continue ratcheting up the backwards far right morals they enforce through judicial legislation?
Isn't the hysteria more over the fact that our minoritarian reactionary SC will leverage this or similar cases to continue ratcheting up the backwards far right morals they enforce through judicial legislation?
Investigating and reporting on consumer protection issues is what turned John Stossel into a libertarian. He started out as a Ralph Nader-style leftie. But he came to realize that market competition is the only real consumer-protection mechanism.
“Anything that reduces costs increases supply, anything that increases supply reduces prices, and anything that reduces prices helps consumers”
Unless of course like virtually every other branch of medicine there are huge or impassable barriers to entry. Then it’s not clear this will do anything at all to reduce costs. It’d be like if I absolve hospitals of all tort liability but don’t allow anyone else to do what hospitals do
Only about 12% of the population opposes IVF. Even amongst the hardest cored abortion opposers that think it's wrong in all cases, only 16% of those people think IVF is wrong in all cases.
This was a non-issue blown up for a new cycle, and it's said that some women in Alabama had to suffer awhile for a news cycle. I also feel bad for people that may lose their embryos due to future clinic negligence.
If Caplan's argument holds, IVF costs in Alabama will fall so far eventually that the state will become a magnet (worldwide?) for customers seeking cheap IVF. This SHOULD become noticeable over time. Can invest in the (Alabama) industry?
Not sure about Caplan’s argument that government granted liability shields as good because they lower costs. I suspect overall lower costs and better quality by shifting away from regulation toward more reliance on tort law to compensate consumers for actual damages caused by corporate negligence or malfeasance. The recent vaxx debacle is a case in point.
I really don't think *A LOCKED DOOR* represents such an onerous expense that it would put IVF out of business.
For many people going through IVF they have a hard time getting enough embryos to have children. If through malice or gross negligence those embryos are destroyed you are destroying their ability to have children. It is completely fair for the party who destroyed those embryos to be liable.
If your stance is "we can't define gross negligence" I think that takes things to far. Certainly, "physically secure an area with embryos" is not too high a bar.
I am one of those "crazies" that says that life begins at conception. I think we both agree that the "life begins at birth" crowd are also crazy. But drawing an arbitrary line somehwhere between conception and birth also seems kinda... arbitrary.
I could point out the fact that a zygote is a living human organism. I could point to this excellent article about it: https://secularprolife.org/2017/08/a-zygote-is-human-being/
But, instead, I want to talk about a brilliant book by a brilliant author hwho notes that most of hwho we are is... genetic! Our hair colour, our skin colour, our personality, intelligence, etc. is genetic. And our genes are determined at... conception!
I was ME from the moment of my conception, you were YOU from the moment of YOUR conception, my daughter was HER from the moment of HER conception: Even if she didn't have eyes already, it was already determined that she would have brown eyes, even if she didn't have hair already, it was already determined that she would have brown hair, even if she didn't have a brain already, it was already determined that she would be smart and a "silly goose" (just like her daddy!), from the moment of conception.
We are US from the moment of conception. Abortion and IVF both destroy human lives. A brilliant gay black boy with an infectious smile, a funny, conscientious Asian girl and thousands more unique individuals are destroyed when someone drops that container of embryos.
So hwhat am I saying: I am unique, therefore I am? kinda... But I know hwhat you're thinking: Does that mean that an identical twin or a clone is... expendable? No. Because they're unique in their own way. They are their own organism.
So, I am against abortion and IVF. I think a lot of pro-lifers don't really think enough about IVF. But we should. I am kinda disappointed in Kay Ivey. Maybe she should watch this video: https://youtu.be/e6VYza7JE6s?si=IatEvvtANchc1dMH
Why engage in the hyperbole of saying all consumer protection is suspect. There are plenty of cases where consumer protection exists to combat a genuine market failure or because of demonstrated consumer irrationality. For instance, laws that prevent sellers from lying about the features of their product.
Look, I also think that we engage in quite a bit of overregulation but if we didn't have basic laws preventing outright fraud or the like transaction costs would likely push people towards a few big reliable sources and we'd lose much of that valuable competition.
The Problem with IVF is that it turns human Life into a Product that can be bought and sold. The truth of the industry is that it's extremely predatory, preying on millennial women who have been getting lied to their whole life about getting married and having kids young like they should, and vulnerable parents who have fertility issues by offering them a snake oil cure. The results are bad, for starters they are almost always unsuccessful, given the cost a failure rate of 80% or higher is pretty bad. And even when successful the majority of IVF kids will have all sorts of Health and Developmental issues bc at the end of the day, it's not natural. You can't just Frankenstein humans in a lab and expect their to be no consequences. The entire industry is built on a lot of empty promises and outright lies. This isn't even getting into the Ethics of IVF and how if you view life as beginning at Conception you must oppose IVF on the grounds of how it is practiced (multiple embryos at a time which many die, freezing of fertilized embryos=incarceration without a trial, Man playing God, etc) Alabama made the wrong call, they had an opportunity to eradicate the practice entirely from the state but the GOP got scared bc they recognize the Overton window has shifted the majority of their Conservative based away from Traditional Conservatism and into 1970s Liberalism.
From my understanding, IVF clinics in Alabama actually paused treatment because they suspected they might be held responsible for the accidental destruction or disposal of embryos due to the ruling. This seems like a reasonable response to a court ruling which left them potentially responsible for the death of many "minors." Not wanting be legally responsible for killing hundreds of "minors" is a reasonable response even if you are pretty confident that what you're doing is okay. Pausing treatment was a reasonable response given the situation. And so it was looking like Alabama women were going to lose access IVF and people were rightfully not happy with this. Although it may not be on account of Dobbs, I am unsure why this is all so "hysterical."
Is your belief that private actions (torts litigation specifically) are bad? If not, then isn’t removing civil liability turning off the ability to sue a bad thing unless it is a really limited civil immunity?
Just to explain why the coverage of this decision was genuinely hysterical let me note the following:
1) Quite a few states allow for wrongful death suits when someone negligently causes a woman to lose a pregnancy many at anytime after conception --including blue states like IL.
2) Letting wrongful death statutes cover unborn children is a reasonable policy choice even if you are deeply pro-choice since otherwise pregnant couples who have suffered a very real loss do to someone else's negligence wouldn't have any recourse, e.g., say your doc doesn't bother to ask if you are pregnant before giving you a medication that causes you to lose your child.
3) Once you say that the wrongful death statute covers a fetus at any point after conception it's a totally reasonable interpretation to think it covers said fetus inside or outside the womb. Indeed, it would be weird to treat them differently absent wording in the law to suggest doing so.
4) So judges in AL just reasonably applied an existing law to a novel circumstance. It didn't result in good policy but that's not the judge's job. The legislature saw that the existing law was broken and fixed it.
At no point was there any suggestion (except maybe in the batshit concurrence by one crazy judge) that this implied anything about the status of a fetus under other laws like murder. This was just the court and legislature both doing their job.
Isn't the hysteria more over the fact that our minoritarian reactionary SC will leverage this or similar cases to continue ratcheting up the backwards far right morals they enforce through judicial legislation?
Isn't the hysteria more over the fact that our minoritarian reactionary SC will leverage this or similar cases to continue ratcheting up the backwards far right morals they enforce through judicial legislation?
Investigating and reporting on consumer protection issues is what turned John Stossel into a libertarian. He started out as a Ralph Nader-style leftie. But he came to realize that market competition is the only real consumer-protection mechanism.
“Anything that reduces costs increases supply, anything that increases supply reduces prices, and anything that reduces prices helps consumers”
Unless of course like virtually every other branch of medicine there are huge or impassable barriers to entry. Then it’s not clear this will do anything at all to reduce costs. It’d be like if I absolve hospitals of all tort liability but don’t allow anyone else to do what hospitals do
Abortion is never going to be popular, even when its supported by a majority people still don't feel good about it.
But IVF is pretty popular, so there is a desire to link aAbortion with IVF.
https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/how-do-americans-feel-about-in-vitro
The problem is there isn't much of a link.
Only about 12% of the population opposes IVF. Even amongst the hardest cored abortion opposers that think it's wrong in all cases, only 16% of those people think IVF is wrong in all cases.
This was a non-issue blown up for a new cycle, and it's said that some women in Alabama had to suffer awhile for a news cycle. I also feel bad for people that may lose their embryos due to future clinic negligence.
If Caplan's argument holds, IVF costs in Alabama will fall so far eventually that the state will become a magnet (worldwide?) for customers seeking cheap IVF. This SHOULD become noticeable over time. Can invest in the (Alabama) industry?
Not sure about Caplan’s argument that government granted liability shields as good because they lower costs. I suspect overall lower costs and better quality by shifting away from regulation toward more reliance on tort law to compensate consumers for actual damages caused by corporate negligence or malfeasance. The recent vaxx debacle is a case in point.