Chattanooga Times Free Press

ALABAMA USHERS IN THE THEOCRACY

-

Welcome to the theocracy.

I don’t use that word lightly, not about life in the United States. But read the Alabama Supreme Court ruling declaring that frozen embryos — “extrauteri­ne children” in a “cryogenic nursery,” the court calls them — are human beings.

Especially read the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Tom Parker on the meaning of the Alabama Constituti­on, which declares that “it is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.” Parker cites Genesis (man is created “in the image of God”), the prophet Jeremiah (“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you”), Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and other Christian thinkers to support his view that the state constituti­on adopts a “theologica­lly based view of the sanctity of life.”

This is no surprise coming from Parker. An ally of then-Chief Justice Roy Moore of Ten Commandmen­ts-in-the-courthouse fame, Parker has denounced Roe v. Wade as a “constituti­onal aberration” and suggested that state courts should resist implementi­ng the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage.

I’ll quote at length so you know I’m not exaggerati­ng about theocracy. The Alabama constituti­on’s “sanctity of unborn life” provision, he wrote, “encompasse­s the following: (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destructio­n of His image as an affront to Himself.”

Alabama law, he said, “recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life — that even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.”

At one point, he described the embryos — frozen within a few days of fertilizat­ion, when they consist of perhaps a few hundred cells — as “little people.”

Whoa. There’s a part of the U.S. Constituti­on that might be relevant here. It provides that the government — and that includes the government of Alabama — “shall make no law respecting an establishm­ent of religion.” If Parker has heard of this part of the First Amendment, he never mentions it.

The plaintiffs are three infertile couples whose embryos were destroyed because of what they claim is negligence on the part of the fertility clinic that froze the embryos for later use. The couples sued under the state’s 1872 Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, which the Alabama Supreme Court has previously said applies to “unborn children.”

So, is a frozen embryo an unborn child?

The trial court said no. The Alabama Supreme Court disagreed, a result, according to the dissent, that “no court — anywhere in the country — has reached.”

The ruling went off the rails from the start. “All parties to these cases, like all members of this Court, agree that an unborn child is a geneticall­y unique human being whose life begins at fertilizat­ion and ends at death,” wrote Justice Jay Mitchell.

Whoa again. “All parties” in this case might agree, but there’s vigorous debate, as much a matter of theology as of science, about when life begins — most relevantly, whether it begins at fertilizat­ion, before implantati­on in the uterus. It’s nonsensica­l to think that a law enacted in 1872, before there was any concept of in vitro fertilizat­ion, would apply to such situations.

As I said, welcome to the theocracy.

This decision is dangerous on two levels — one immediate, the other longer-term but equally sinister.

The imminent danger is to the availabili­ty of IVF in Alabama. As the clinic and the Alabama Medical Associatio­n argued, if embryos are unborn children protected by the wrongfulde­ath law, creating and storing embryos will be unduly risky.

The ruling “almost certainly ends the creation of frozen embryos through in vitro fertilizat­ion” in the state, wrote dissenting Justice Greg Cook.

The longer-term danger — indeed the apparent longer-term goal — is to raise and expand the definition of unborn personhood, to go after birth control methods and reproducti­ve technologi­es that involve fertilized eggs.

The ultimate aim, of course, is to have the fertilized egg declared a person from the moment of conception, under state constituti­ons and, ultimately, the 14th Amendment. And guess who’s been at the forefront of that movement. Alabama’s now-chief justice, Tom Parker.

 ?? ?? Ruth Marcus
Ruth Marcus

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States