This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Alabama IVF Ruling by FaytlND

I think this is certainly worthy of discussion. I don't have the specific legal knowledge to opine on whether the decision makes sense, but from the coverage, seems like it fits with an interpretation of the Alabama state constitution.

The more pressing issue--if the reporting is correct--is that it may functionally prohibit IVF in the state. While not doing so explicitly, it could make it so that the only way to do it is singly embryo transfer. A situation which would make the process much less accessible due to potential costs (not to mention the added risks associated with additional cycles required to be successful).