Fundamento destacado: Similarly, Plaintiffs’ reliance upon the constitutional amendment at ALA. CONST. ART. I, §36.06, though raised in its filings to the trial court, is misplaced. The amendment at ART. I, §36.06 establishes an intent to protect the rights of unborn children “in all manners and measures lawful and appropriate” – a tenet of law not in dispute in this case. But, when our Legislature passed the related “Alabama Human Life Protection Act,” it included in that Act a list of related “Legislative findings” and specifically quoted ALA. CONST. ART. I, §36.06 in conjunction with the Brody Act’s definition of a “person” using the term “unborn child in utero.” ALA. CODE §26-23H-2(b) and (c) (“On November 6, 2018, electors in this state approved by a majority vote a constitutional amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 declaring and affirming the public policy of the state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children. The amendment made it clear that the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 does not include a right to an abortion or require the funding of abortions using public funds. (c) In present state law, Section 13A-6-1 defines a person for homicide purposes to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.”) Thus, 61 the Legislature in 2019, adopted, incorporated, and linked the constitutional amendment at ART. I, §36.06 with the Brody Act, which specifically uses the very “in utero” distinction Plaintiffs contend is untenable. In sum, this “in utero” distinction was not only utilized by the Legislature in the Brody Act but was later repeated in 2019 legislation intended, by its very title, as the “Human Life Protection Act,” alongside quotes from both ART. I, §36.06 and the Brody Act’s “in utero” language. Suffice it to say Plaintiffs have mis-relied upon this law and seek here to create an improper extension of legislative reach where no truly supportive legislative intent or statute exists.
Lea también: Diplomado Código Procesal Civil y litigación oral. Inicio 7 de febrero de 2024
Case No. SC-2022-0515
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Respectfully, oral argument is not necessary, nor is it indicated in this case. The legal issues presented have already been decided. The trial court’s ruling followed, to the letter, the direct instructions from this Court to apply the Brody Act’s definition of who is a “person” in the context of a civil wrongful death action in order to “harmonize who is a person protected from homicide under both the Homicide Act and the Wrongful Death Act.”
Stinnett v. Kennedy, 232 So. 3d 202, 215 (Ala. 2016) (“…[I]n light of the shared purpose of the Wrongful Death Act and the Homicide Act to prevent homicide, the [Brody] amendment was an important pronouncement of public policy concerning who is a “person” protected from homicide. Thus, borrowing the definition of “person” from the criminal Homicide Act to inform as to who is protected under the civil Wrongful Death Act [makes] sense…. to harmonize who is a “person” protected from homicide under both the Homicide Act and Wrongful Death Act.”) The trial court’s holding here is in complete accord.
It applies the Legislature’s definition of “person” so that it is consistent and harmonized between the Homicide Act and the Wrongful Death Act to include unborn children “in utero” as instructed. There has been no pronouncement by the Legislature expanding this definition to include “in vitro” embryos. As the trial court recognized, any change in this law needs to come from our Legislature. Respectfully, this Court frequently rules without requiring oral argument in such a case. In fact, this Court frequently affirms without opinion in such a case involving definitive and clear precedent – both statutory and case law – which a trial court has followed unswervingly.
It is clear from Plaintiffs’ filings they seek to deflect attention away from the above-cited law and instead pressure this Court into legislating. Their Brief repeatedly emphasizes various politicians’ public statements regarding abortion and attempts to blur this case with recent law applying to active pregnancies and abortion rights.
Oral argument would no doubt be another forum through which they could attempt to confuse the issues and the public, casting this case as something it is not in an effort to tap into the political upheaval and pressure surrounding the abortion issue.
As the trial court stated in its dismissal Order, “This Court is not tasked with the responsibility to determine when life begins, as has been suggested by some. This Court’s function is to follow existing Alabama law which has been created by the legislature and follow law which has been previously interpreted by the appellate courts of this state.” (C. 351) Respectfully, when a trial court does exactly that, affirmance is indicated. It is up to the Legislature to amend the Brody Act if it wishes to extend the definition of “person” to include in vitro, cryopreserved, pre-implantation embryos. Oral argument before this Court is not the proper forum to promote such legislative change.
Continúa…]
