The Epoch Times
The Epoch Times
AD
The Epoch Times
Support Us
SHARE
USUS Politics2024 Elections

Haley Backs Alabama Ruling That Embryos Are Babies

‘Embryos to me are babies,’ Ms. Haley told NBC News on Feb. 21, noting that she had her son, Nalin Haley, through artificial insemination.
Copy
Facebook
X
Truth
Gettr
LinkedIn
Telegram
Email
Save
Haley Backs Alabama Ruling That Embryos Are Babies
Republican presidential candidate and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley speaks during a campaign event at Clemson University in Clemson, S.C., on Feb. 20, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times
Jackson Richman
Naveen Athrappully
By Jackson Richman and Naveen Athrappully
2/21/2024Updated: 2/21/2024
0:00

GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley came out in support of an Alabama Supreme Court decision that deemed embryos made through in-vitro fertilization (IVF) as living beings.

“Embryos to me are babies,” Ms. Haley told NBC News on Feb. 21, noting that she had her son, Nalin Haley, through artificial insemination.

Ms. Haley, who is pro-life, remarked that it is one thing to save sperm or eggs, “but when you talk about an embryo, you are talking about, to me, that’s a life.”

Therefore, she said, “I do see where that’s coming from when [the Alabama Supreme Court ] talk[s] about that.”

Nonetheless, said Ms. Haley, conversations about IVF are “incredibly personal” and “incredibly sensitive.”

“That’s the conversation the doctor needs to have with the patient,” she said. “Let’s never underestimate the importance of the relationship between a doctor and patient when they’re doing any of that.”

Related Stories
Haley Vows to Stay in Race Regardless of South Carolina Results
2/20/2024
Haley Vows to Stay in Race Regardless of South Carolina Results
What to Watch as Trump Faces Off With Haley in the South Carolina Primary
2/20/2024
What to Watch as Trump Faces Off With Haley in the South Carolina Primary

Ms. Haley’s call for a sensitive approach to the IVF issue echoes her tone on the issue of abortion, which she said needs to be treated with a “respectful” mindset and where there should be a consensus.

The Feb. 16 ruling came as part of a lawsuit in which plaintiffs claimed damages for embryos stored at a cryogenic facility that was destroyed.

In its decision, the Alabama Supreme Court pointed out that the central question in the case was whether unborn children located outside of a biological uterus at the time they are killed are exempted from the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.

“The answer to that question is no: the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to all unborn children, regardless of their location,” the court decided in a 7–2 ruling.
“Neither the text of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act nor this Court’s precedents exclude extrauterine children from the Act’s coverage. Unborn children are ‘children’ under the Act, without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics.”
The case was brought by a group of couples against a fertility clinic operated by the Center for Reproductive Medicine. Between 2013 and 2016, the couples approached the center to undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments. The center succeeded in joining eggs and sperm outside the womb, gestating the embryos for a few days, and placing them in a “cryogenic nursery.”

The nursery is a facility designed to keep embryos alive at a fixed developmental stage, preserving them at a low temperature. If properly maintained, the embryo can remain alive “indefinitely.”

The plaintiffs raised several concerns in the case regarding exempting extrauterine children from the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.

Such a move would deprive their parents of any civil remedy against people who kill their unborn child after the child has left the uterus but before the child has been fully delivered from the birth canal, they said. They also warned that the exemption could raise “serious constitutional questions.”

The defendants argued that the embryos do not qualify as children or people. According to the majority opinion, the plaintiffs pointed out that such a condition would mean that “even a full-term infant or toddler conceived through IVF and gestated to term in an in vitro environment would not qualify as a ‘child’ or ‘person.’”

The defendants argued that not creating an exemption for extrauterine children would result in “undesirable” public policy outcomes.

They claimed that the lack of an exemption would “substantially increase the cost of IVF in Alabama” and make cryogenic preservation onerous. The Medical Association of the State of Alabama stated in its amicus brief that the “costs and storage issues would be prohibitive.”

The ruling noted that these are policy-focused arguments that belong to the state legislature and not the court. Judges are required to conform their rulings to the law and the Constitution, it stated.

“It is not the role of this Court to craft a new limitation based on our own view of what is or is not wise public policy,” the court stated.

Jackson Richman is a Washington correspondent for The Epoch Times. In addition to Washington politics, he covers the intersection of politics and sports/sports and culture. He previously was a writer at Mediaite and Washington correspondent at Jewish News Syndicate. His writing has also appeared in The Washington Examiner. He is an alum of George Washington University.
twitter
Author’s Selected Articles

Outage Reported at Denver International Airport

May 16, 2025
Outage Reported at Denver International Airport

House Budget Committee Rejects GOP Bill to Enact Trump’s Agenda

May 16, 2025
House Budget Committee Rejects GOP Bill to Enact Trump’s Agenda

Republicans Dealing With Key Hold Ups in Megabill

May 15, 2025
Republicans Dealing With Key Hold Ups in Megabill

Federal Judiciary Requests Funding Increase Amid Threats

May 15, 2025
Federal Judiciary Requests Funding Increase Amid Threats
Related Topics
Alabama
embryo
Nikki Haley
Nikki Haley 2024
Save
The Epoch Times
Copyright © 2000 - 2025 The Epoch Times Association Inc. All Rights Reserved.