I know I am not the only one questioning what has been going on in Alabama recently. 

It seems courts all around the United States can’t figure out how to push their political agendas without considering how the outcomes will negatively affect people’s lives. 

They weren’t even trying to be subtle this time. 

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 16 that frozen embryos should be considered “extrauterine,” or living children. 

This essentially means a frozen embryo, a clump of cells with no brain, has the same rights as you and me. 

Now, when looking at the case in the eyes of the plaintiffs — who filed against the patient who carelessly destroyed their embryos — the demand for justice is completely valid. In-vitro fertilization, or IVF, is a long and straining process to go through, mentally and physically, and losing the possibility of having a child is understandably heartbreaking.

But, the court’s decision to define personhood at such an early stage opened unwelcoming doors.

In its efforts to protect the rights of unborn life, this ruling simultaneously denied the right to create life for those who rely on IVF to conceive. 

According to Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, the destruction of a frozen embryo can now lead to potential lawsuits. 

Because of this, those in Alabama who rely on IVF to conceive, as well as medical practitioners who perform IVF procedures, are stuck in a position of fear. 

Fear of being held liable for a common practice within the IVF process. Fear of putting another in such a position, and even the fear of bringing life into a world where the reproductive and human rights of the people are stripped from them and placed in the grimy hands of governing bodies. 

This hypocrisy of a ruling caused clinics in Alabama to immediately pause all IVF processes until the legalities were sorted out, or at least made sense of, essentially denying the sanctity of creating life. 

Were the effects of this decision seriously not contemplated thoroughly by the court? 

According to a study conducted by Pew Research, IVF is a process used by 2% of U.S. adults. This may seem like a minor percentage, but the impact of this ruling means the world to that percentage, and the other 98% needs to understand that. 

There are several reasons people count on IVF to have a child. The chance of building a family within the process is already stressful enough, but having the right to the procedure taken away entirely because of personal beliefs about when personhood should begin is completely unfair. 

After trying everything, Katie Meyer, a former IVF patient, turned to fertility treatment in hopes of getting pregnant, handing over years to the process.

“It wasn’t our choice to go through IVF, it’s never something I wanted to do,” Meyer said. “To me, it is a science, and that science is what allowed us to have our baby. I think religion should stay out of it.”

The biblical principles posited by Chief Justice Tom Parker drew questions about the very nature of the opinions this ruling was based upon. Not to mention Parker’s ties with Christian Nationalists and self-proclaimed “prophets.”

Does the separation of church and state mean anything anymore? 

Justices should not advocate their religious ideals when deciding in a court of law the fate of our reproductive rights, the fate of our bodies or pretty much any circumstance when it comes to deciding the common good of the people.

Last year, Minnesota passed three bills protecting the “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” for those within the state as well as patients and providers in other states facing civil and criminal penalties. 

Minnesota’s Protect Reproductive Options Act considers and vocalizes the importance of letting people in these positions, without interference by the state, choose what is the best and safest option for them when it comes to their own bodies. 

Christy Boraas, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota and reproductive health researcher, believes decisions about reproductive health are not for the government to make but instead for the people.

“The patient always has the answer,” Boraas said. “It’s dangerous for us to assume that we know more about somebody’s life and dictate that for them when, ultimately, they’re the best decision makers for their lives.”

Alabama’s governor signed into law a bill on March 6 that would grant immunity to IVF patients and providers, to which many paused fertility clinics have then continued IVF procedures without fear of liability. 

The immediate action by the Alabama House and Senate to protect the process of IVF is great for couples and medical practitioners who were forced to put their chances at creating life on pause, but it is not enough.

This legislation is merely for show. Unless moved and signed off by the Alabama Supreme Court, it does not hold up against its dangerous ruling that considers life to begin at conception.

This is the problem that occurs when those in power do not consider the welfare of the people they are supposed to serve. The effects are real and they can change lives. These governing bodies need to reflect this when making their decisions. 

“You’re not going through IVF because it’s a fun process,” Meyer said. “I don’t think that the government should be able to tell us what we can do with our bodies. It feels like we’re going backward [when] we should be moving forward.”

This ruling lives atop far greater issues concerning reproductive health rights in the country. We need elected officials who put the needs and common good of the people before their personal interests and beliefs, and the only way to truly get somewhere is by going out and voting for such people.

After this ruling, questions about the precedent this has set for other states as well as the potential fate of our country are gathering at the forefront of many American minds.

Is this a step toward theocracy? Will this eventually go as far as to hold women liable for murder for simply having their period? 

Maybe then all 50 states will exempt menstrual products from their general sales tax.