Where might this ruling take us in this legal era following the Dobbs decision—an era already marked by uncertainty as if by design?
(Some media coverage so far has unfortunately only fed the uncertainty, mistakenly referring to “frozen eggs” rather than “frozen embryos.”
You might think the ramifications are on hold until this case hits the Supreme Court, but that’s unlikely, law professor Mary Ziegler told NPR.
The ruling leaves open another legal question: If a frozen embryo is a child, and if it may not be destroyed, what outcome does the law permit?
Christianity Today wondered just a few months ago if embryo adoption might be “the next pro-life frontier.”
This is where the anti-abortion movement has always been headed.
This time, they’re getting what they want before most people have realized what they were after. »
