The Alabama Supreme Court decision on in vitro fertilization is an unqualified victory for those who believe that the child, not a financially driven fertility industry, should be the primary concern in IVF and cryopreservation.

Justice Greg Cook, the only dissenter, argued that such a ruling “will have disastrous consequences for the in vitro fertilization industry in Alabama.” This suggests that the right to destroy embryos, either willfully or through neglect, is central to the practice of IVF itself.

The ability to destroy human embryos might be the easiest way to practice IVF, but it is certainly not the only way. Louisiana, for example, has a state law that prohibits the destruction of embryos, and IVF continues to function in that state with no fertility clinics suffering worse outcomes.

Indeed, many European nations have strict limits on how IVF is practiced, ensuring that the embryos receive the best possible treatment. For example, Italy generally prohibits the freezing of human embryos, and Germany restricts to two or three the number of embryos that can be created at a given time. Alabama should consider similar limitations to ensure that this ruling does not further contribute to the 1-million-plus frozen embryos in the United States.

Fertility clinics are on alert that they will be held to a higher standard in their treatment of embryonic human life. Given that IVF is such a costly and invasive process, parents should be grateful that their embryos will receive greater protection. Alabama’s ruling affirms the state’s commitment to promoting a culture of life for all its residents, parents and children alike, regardless of where they are.