Louisiana Law Gives an Embryo Right to Sue

[Le Libérer]

I recently found out about this law that was passed a few years ago after the recent scandal where a Louisiana fertility clinic was closed (http://www.nola.com/news/?/base/news-2/12539430859550.xml&coll=1)when they didnt label the embryos correctly.

Despite the errors, Ochsner CEO Pat Quinlan assured that no embryos had been implanted in the wrong mother. Rather, "we have reason to believe the IVF center has been compromised due to what appears to be a significant labeling issues, which makes us unable to account for all of the frozen embryos in our IVF center," Quinlan said at a news conference Friday.

There are scheduled law suits because of this mix up. And the patients, according to La law can sue on behalf of their unborn embryos. The Louisiana law that would give an embryo the right to sue from the point of conception onward. It gives an embryo from the moment of conception, the same rights a natural person would have when it comes to lawsuits.


The Louisiana Maternal and Child Health Coalition and the Louisiana State Medical Society, both oppose the bill, arguing that it would "make physicians more wary of handling high-risk pregnancies" and would dramatically increase the cost of medical malpractice insurance.

[Rjevan]

Oh wow, this is definitely one of the most stupid laws I have ever heard of!
So abortion is totally impossible in Lousiana in future, since the embryo has "the same rights [as] a natural person" and might sue its parents? What great logic! :rolleyes:

[RedAnarchist]

What's next, tapeworms gaining the right to sue people if they eat properly cooked meat?

[proudcomrade]

What does the law specifically say? Do you have a link to the text of the law?

[Le Libérer]

Here (http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/10/sex-lies-and-embryos/)

Louisiana law defines a human embryo as a fertilized ovum “composed of one or more living human cells and human genetic material so unified and organized that it will develop in utero into an unborn child.” The use of the term “unborn child” rather than “fetus” is telling, given that the former phrase is a favorite of the “Pro-Life” movement that opposes abortion rights. Next, the applicable laws state that an “in vitro fertilized human ovum exists as a juridical person until such time as the in vitro fertilized ovum is implanted in the womb; or at any other time when rights attach to an unborn child in accordance with law.” (“Juridical” means “of or pertaining to the law, jurisprudence, or the administration of justice; legal.”) The statutes go on to provide the fertilized ovum with an entitlement to sue or be sued.


The law categorizes a fertilized ovum as “a biological human being” and not the property of the physician, the facility that employs the physician, or the “donors” of the sperm and ovum. Fertility patients who have provided genetic material to create an embryo are given two choices. If they “express their identity,” then their rights as parents will be preserved. But if they fail to do so and “renounce” their rights, then the physician will become the temporary guardian of the fertilized ovum until “adoptive implantation” can occur. A court also may appoint someone to “protect the in vitro fertilized ovum’s rights.

Abortion is legal in Louisiana, up until the end of the 1st trimester. This law pertains to frozen embryos.

[proudcomrade]

That's some pretty disturbing stuff. I, too, did a mindboggle at the use of the phrase "unborn child" to describe even a single-celled unit of life that has not even developed human organ systems yet. That is pure religious fundamentalism as well as a very poor, slipshod attempt at legal sophistry.

I am guessing that this law is the born child of either the Protestant fundamentalists or the traditionalist Catholics, as usual. Even the strictest and most traditionalist Jews and Muslims would agree that this law is absolutely bizarre.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Most of the states below the Mason-Dixon line think that they're still fighting the civil war against the north. The state and local laws down there are going to be even more fucked up than up north. In many of those states the majority of people think Levitical Law holds more value than our Constitutional Rights.

[yuon]

Does this mean that embryos can be sued? Say a women gets pregnant, can she sue the embryo for pain and suffering caused? (And, possibly, take a portion of said embryo's future earnings.)

Anyway, as already mentioned, this is fucking stupid. What need does a frozen embryo have to sue someone? That it got put in the wrong women?

[Le Libérer]

Does this mean that embryos can be sued? Say a women gets pregnant, can she sue the embryo for pain and suffering caused? (And, possibly, take a portion of said embryo's future earnings.)

Anyway, as already mentioned, this is fucking stupid. What need does a frozen embryo have to sue someone? That it got put in the wrong women?
Well there was reasoning behind this law, and I will have to go back and research it for you. It was as asinine as the law itself, so I dont want to misquote it.

I think proudcomrade pretty summed it up with his post:


That's some pretty disturbing stuff. I, too, did a mindboggle at the use of the phrase "unborn child" to describe even a single-celled unit of life that has not even developed human organ systems yet. That is pure religious fundamentalism as well as a very poor, slipshod attempt at legal sophistry.

[Dimentio]

Maybe the wrong thread, but what is tort reform?

[JimmyJazz]

Maybe the wrong thread, but what is tort reform?

Legal reform to prevent people from suing doctors for malpractice so often and/or not allowing them to sue for so much.

[9]

Here (http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/10/sex-lies-and-embryos/)

Louisiana law defines a human embryo as a fertilized ovum “composed of one or more living human cells and human genetic material so unified and organized that it will develop in utero into an unborn child.” The use of the term “unborn child” rather than “fetus” is telling, given that the former phrase is a favorite of the “Pro-Life” movement that opposes abortion rights. Next, the applicable laws state that an “in vitro fertilized human ovum exists as a juridical person until such time as the in vitro fertilized ovum is implanted in the womb; or at any other time when rights attach to an unborn child in accordance with law.” (“Juridical” means “of or pertaining to the law, jurisprudence, or the administration of justice; legal.”) The statutes go on to provide the fertilized ovum with an entitlement to sue or be sued.


The law categorizes a fertilized ovum as “a biological human being” and not the property of the physician, the facility that employs the physician, or the “donors” of the sperm and ovum. Fertility patients who have provided genetic material to create an embryo are given two choices. If they “express their identity,” then their rights as parents will be preserved. But if they fail to do so and “renounce” their rights, then the physician will become the temporary guardian of the fertilized ovum until “adoptive implantation” can occur. A court also may appoint someone to “protect the in vitro fertilized ovum’s rights.

Abortion is legal in Louisiana, up until the end of the 1st trimester. This law pertains to frozen embryos.

From reading what you've said (I haven't viewed the actual legislation you linked to yet), this also sounds like a very clear attack on (the possibility of) stem cell research, considering some of the language regarding the "fertilized ovum's rights". These absurd nutters. The ironic part is that, of all the deranged fairy-tales in the Bible that these people claim so fanatically to be reflecting through their legislature, there is no scriptural reference to the sanctity of an embryo. I wonder if they also jack off and keep their cum in gallon jugs in their garages and sing lullabies to it.
How absurd.

[Yehuda Stern]

Obviously I agree that this law is reactionary, but I'm not sure it's as stupid as some posters suggest. I'm no law expert, but isn't the state obligated under some conditions to sue for a person if he is incapable of suing? If that's true then this law could easily give the state the right to sue every woman who gets an abortion.

[bcbm]

The ironic part is that, of all the deranged fairy-tales in the Bible that these people claim so fanatically to be reflecting through their legislature, there is no scriptural reference to the sanctity of an embryo.

as with many things christians do today, they'll take a nice, poetic verse like Jeremiah 1:5 “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb,” and run with it to the point that embryos have the right to sue. meanwhile, its ok to eat shellfish and pigs and women don't have to be hidden away during their period. aren't fundamentalists who can't even follow the clearly spelled out rules while making up ones that make life much harder for others buckets of fun?


I wonder if they also jack off and keep their cum in gallon jugs in their garages and sing lullabies to it.
only the ones who go to mega churches.

[Bilan]

Naturally, the best response to this would be: "I'll see it in court."



There are scheduled law suits because of this mix up. And the patients, according to La law can sue on behalf of their unborn embryos. The Louisiana law that would give an embryo the right to sue from the point of conception onward. It gives an embryo from the moment of conception, the same rights a natural person would have when it comes to lawsuits.

That is fucking mental/ridiculous. How can that possibly be?!

[RotStern]

wtf o-o.
How is a little thinggy of plasma going to stand up in court and sue something.
Hahaha. We should have a whole thread pointing out ridiculous laws around the world! :)