Agreed. If they're anything like my favorite voted-for-Reagan construction clients, they'll scream "Build the wall!" in front of their non-citizen housekeeperS; while Mr. goes to strip clubs and Mrs. has vibrators (Reagan campaigned against both, as obscene).

----

Only so much time in the day for such hypocracy!!!

----

I read here on HN, just this morning, something to the effect of:

>>Our global economy has become an amalgamation of the worst parts of both capitalism and communism

And the above example (from my favorite client) is spot-on(-true).

The rich could get abortions before roe v wade, they can get them today. The same applies to IVF, but now even if you were middle class with health insurance that did cover IVF (it's unclear whether this is mandatory or not), health insurance does not cover travel or accommodation needed for treatment.

Basically two couples went through IVF, created embryos, and those embryos were frozen. Some other patient at the hospital gained access to the lab through an "unsecured" door, opened up the frozen storage container, pulled the embryos out, and promptly dropped them (extreme cold), destroying them. The plaintiffs are looking at the hospital for civil damages, due to the negligence of not securing the storage.

The court's decision seems like a straightforward application of how Alabama's constitution was previously amended regarding the unborn. Philosophically, I do not agree with that amendment - especially as its main aim is as a wedge for preventing straightforward women's medical care in favor of more lethal options.

But I've also got a hard time brushing aside these would-be parents' desire for accountability from the hospital for the deaths of what they had hoped would be their children. In this case the "rights of the unborn" and the rights and desires of the parents were aligned (rather than being in conflict as in most situations of this topic). The hospital should not be allowed to hide behind the standard disclaimers about medical outcomes not being assured, or the vanishing "market value" of tissue samples, to shirk basic responsibility that would have easily prevented the plaintiffs' horrible losses.

I do agree the implications of the decision being available as a precedent aren't great on a few fronts, but that responsibility rests on the constitutional amendment itself.