God is Mentioned 40 Times in the Alabama Court Ruling on IVF

How much should God decide how Americans handle fertility treatments? Let’s discuss…

“… human life is an endowment from God emphasizes a foundational principle of English common law.”

So reads the latest ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court on IVF treatments. And that isn’t even the scary bits.

“…the People of Alabama took what was spoken of the prophet Jeremiah and applied it to every unborn person in this state.”

Yes, that is a direct quote. James Madison is rolling in his grave.

But if you still possess critical thinking skills, you might be asking — which God? Is it Jesus, Allah, Beelzebub, or Dionysus? (Dionysus could make test tube babies in wine, so he has my vote.)

Here are the non-religious cliff notes.

The case of Burdick-Aysenne v. Center for Reproductive Medicine involves a wrongful death suit surrounding vitro fertilization, commonly known as IVF.

Apparently, a patient wandered into the cryogenic nursery, picked up a few test tubes, burnt their hands, and dropped them. My guess is that the Butterfingers baby killer didn’t realize that IVF requires liquid nitrogen…which burns. (This all could have been avoided if Alabama spent less money on bible studies and more on STEM programs. Just sayin.’)

These embryos are typically stored in a freezer until they can become implanted in a uterus. But despite only containing 6–10 cells and being the length of a postage stamp, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the frozen embryos are persons because our Constitution’s preamble “invok[es] the favor and guidance of Almighty God.”

Does Beezlebub get a say? How about our Founding Fathers? Or better yet, why didn’t they pull from the First Amendment? There are some choice words about the Separation of Church and State.

Unfortunately, another backlash of labeling embryos as people is that the ruling will prevent couples from creating multiple embryos. Currently, IVF is a bit of a numbers (and prayers) game. You go through a cycle, cross your fingers for a bumper crop of eggs, and freeze those little potential bundles of joy. Then, a doctor implants them one at a time to give them their shot at life.

Seems straightforward, right? Well, not according to this court. They want to fertilize just one egg at a time so there are no leftovers. Ostensibly, this practice would drive up the cost of IVF.

And let’s not forget about preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). It’s like playing genetic roulette with these embryos. If an embryo fails the genetic test, well, that’s a whole can of worms doctors might not want to open. Even more concerning, sometimes embryos do not survive genetic testing. And if someone can get in a heap load of trouble for dropping an embryo, killing an embryo through genetic testing is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

I actually read the 131-page ruling, so you wouldn’t have to. And I gotta tell ya…it would make even the most hardcore bible thumper clutch their Atwood harder than their rosary beads.

To start, “God” is mentioned 40 times, and “science” is only mentioned four times. Now, I am not saying God factored into the decision precisely ten times more than science, but these Supreme Court justices sure gave him top billing for a privacy decision that should be between couples and their doctor.

Here’s some more math. Out of the 9 Alabama Supreme Court justices, 2 are women, 7 are men, and all 9 are Republicans. So there’s that to discuss.

These nine Republicans evoked the 1872 “Wrongful Death of a Minor Act” that states “all unborn children” are “persons” regardless of their “developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics.”

It’s the second one that matters. Location, location, location. It’s important for real estate and unborn babies. Of course, these unborn babies’ “location” was the Mobile Infirmary Association’s cryogenic nursery and not inside a woman.

However, no matter where you store the baby batter, everyone has a different opinion on when life begins. Conservatives generally believe life begins when an egg is fertilized. Therefore, embryos are a person.

Liberals throw up their hands and say no one knows when life begins, but I sure as hell don’t want your “God” deciding.

Either way, until we can grow a human in a test tube like a chia pet, an embryo requires implantation…into a uterus. So you can call out God’s name 40 times in 40 different languages and claim those embryos are life until the Messiah returns, but they are never walking out of their Petri dish.

Now, follow my terrifying syllogistic prediction…

If an embryo needs a uterus to develop into a fetus, what happens to the woman whose uterus can not carry a child? Since Republicans are determined to reduce women’s “personhood” to a uterus, our future Marthas are screwed.

Consider another scenario. Currently, many couples have leftover embryos which now can not be destroyed. What do they do with them? Donate them to the highest bidder? Maybe. Hold them a gender reveal party? Adorable.

Or will the latest draconian reproductive laws rule that embryos must be implanted in these career-driven women woefully running down their fertility clocks?

Go ahead and accuse me of the dreaded women’s hysteria, but if red states make IVF cost-prohibitive, women will have fewer options. Unfortunately, infertility tends to rise with age in both men and women, so most couples using IVF treatments skew older.

Consequently, once IVF treatments become too costly, women in red states will not want to risk having children too late. Those women will be forced to put their careers on hold, and the wage gap (that is really a motherhood penalty) will increase. Other women will choose their careers, delay having children, and might never become mothers.

Unfortunately, the states with the highest wage gaps are also some of the poorest and uneducated. (Alabama is number 5 on that list.) What company wants to locate its HQ in states with poorer education systems, rampant gender inequality, and no support for couples trying to conceive? They certainly will not attract tech companies or educated women.

I will say the quiet part out loud. This yokel god-fearing, anti-science stance is one of the oldest pages in the control the masses playbook. Keep people in poverty and make them fear revolting by using the Lord’s name.

The history lesson you were taught is wrong.

We learned in first-grade history that the Pilgrims came to America to escape religious persecution. The truth is more nuanced. In reality, the Pilgrims left England and settled in the Dutch Republic, where they had unlimited religious freedom.

However, while in Leiden, the wool market collapsed, the Thirty Year War followed, and secular Dutch society was planting impure thoughts in their children’s heads. Unfortunately, they couldn’t return to England because England practiced the wrong religion.

In other words, the Pilgrims were not trying to escape religious persecution. They were trying to escape poverty, war, and England’s religion. Consequently, when they journeyed to America, they still wanted to practice religion, but only if it was Christ Almighty.

Has anything changed?

The Supreme Court always references the history of “English Common Law.” They should remember the common religion.

Carlyn Beccia is an award-winning author and illustrator of 13 books. For past articles grouped by subject, see my Table of Contents.

For free content every Wednesday, subscribe to Conversations with Carlyn, or become a paid subscriber to get the juicy stuff on Sundays.