>> FROM OUR STATE HOUSE STUDIO IN MONTGOMERY, I'M TODD STACY.

WELCOME TO "CAPITOL JOURNAL."

ANOTHER BUSY DAY IN THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE AS THE HOUSE AND SENATE MET FOR THE 12TH LEGISLATIVE DAY.

AND THE TOPIC OF THE DAY WAS TH ISSUE THAT HAS DOMINATED STATE AND NATIONAL HEADLINES FOR THE LAST WEEK: IN-VITRO FERTILIZATION AND THE PREDICAMENT FACING CLINICS AND PATIENTS IN THE WAKE OF THE RECENT ALABAMA SUPREME COURT RULING SAYING FROZEN EMBRYOS AR TO BE CONSIDERED CHILDREN UNDER STATE LAW.

THAT RULING LED TO SEVERAL FERTILITY CLINICS, INCLUDING UA HEALTH SYSTEMS, TO HALT THEIR IVF TREATMENTS BECAUSE OF THE RISK OF BEING SUED.

BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE SPENT MOST OF THE DAY DEBATING LEGISLATION THAT AIMS TO ADDRES THIS ISSUE BY OFFERING LIMITED LEGAL PROTECTIONS TO CLINICS AN PROSPECTIVE PARENTS.

WHILE THERE WAS BI-PARTISAN CONSENSUS THAT ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO ALLOW IVF TO CONTINUE, THERE WERE SOME DISAGREEMENTS AMONG REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ABOUT HOW FAR THOSE PROTECTIONS SHOULD GO AND WHETHER OR NOT TO ADDRESS THE MORE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION OF PERSONHOOD.

WE'LL START IN THE HOUSE, WHERE LEGISLATION FROM REPRESENTATIVE TERRI COLLINS WAS CONSIDERED.

>> THIS IS ABOUT A LIABILITY IMMUNITY.

IT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT TO DO.

IT'S NOT GOING TO LONG-TERM DO IT.

WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO FIX THE PROBLEM.

BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE WANTING TO GET THE CLINICS OPEN FOR THE FAMILIES TO BE USING THEM AND THIS DOES THAT.

>> DOES THIS HAVE A SUNSET TIME >> IT DOES NOT HAVE A SUNSET.

>> WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT.

>> BECAUSE THE PROCESS FOR IN VITRO FERTILIZATION IS LONGER SOMETIMES THAN THAT SUNSET DAY AND THAT WOULD MESS IT UP.

SO THE SUNSET DAY WAS AS MUCH FOR US TO BE RESPONSIBLE AND COME BACK AND COULD THE RIGHT THING TO MAKE A LETTER FIX BUT THAT'S WHY THE SUNSET DATE WAS TAKEN OUT.

>> OKAY.

THE REASONING WE HAD FOR SLOWING THIS DOWN WAS UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

>> YES.

>> AND AS THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM WHEN WE TALKED WERE FOR HAVING AN ESCAPE CLAUSE TO KEEP US FROM GETTING LOCKED INTO UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

>> RIGHT.

>> SO THAT ESCAPE CLAUSE IS NO LONGER IN THERE SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE SUNSET.

>> WELL, WE STILL HAVE MOST OF THE SESSION LEFT TO CONTINUE TO WATCH FOR THAT.

IT HAS BEEN CHANGING.

IT'S BEEN CHANGING HEAR DAY TRYING TO GET DIFFERENT GROUPS TO AGREE ON THINGS.

WE STILL HAVE TWO MORE LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO WORK ON THIS.

BUT IT TAKES FIVE DAYS FOR US TO PASS LEGISLATION.

MY GOAL IS TO KEEP THIS MOVING BECAUSE OF THIS IS A BILL THAT WE CAN USE TO TAKE CARE OF THE FAMILIES THAT ARE GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS RIGHT NOW.

>> THAT BILL, HOUSE BILL 237, PASSED 94-6, WITH THREE ABSTAINING.

SIMILAR LEGISLATION WAS ALSO DEBATED IN THE SENATE, WHERE DEBATE LASTED FOR ABOUT THREE HOURS.

SENATORS ALSO ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE BILL THAT WOULD LIMIT THOSE LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR CLINICS TO ENSURE THAT PATIENTS HAVE THE PROPER RIGHT OF RECOURSE.

THE LEGISLATION WAS CARRIED BY SENATOR TIM MELSON.

>> THIS IS TOUGH.

I MEAN, YOU HAVE -- WE ALL VALUE LIFE BUT IT'S HARD TO PUT A VALUE ON LIFE; RIGHT?

SO THESE EMBRYOS THAT ARE -- THAT THE CLINICS ARE LOSING, THEY DON'T WANT TO LOSE THEM, FOR NUMEROUS REASONS, MORAL AND FINANCIAL, THEY WANT TO BE SUCCESSFUL, AND WE WILL SEE.

WE WILL SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE.

>> I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SEE THIS MOMENT IN ADVERTISEMENT OF HISTORY IN THIS STATE OH, PRECIOUS ALABAMA, OLD CONSERVATIVE ALABAMA, SUPER MAJORITY REPUBLICAN PARTY.

WOULD PUT THE WOMEN THEY SAID THEY LOVE IN THIS POSITION.

NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

BECAUSE IT'S A BUNCH OF MEN WHO DECIDED THEY'RE GOING TO SAY WHAT A WOMAN SHOULD DO WITH HER BODY.

>> AS YOU HAVE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED, WE CAN'T FIX IT HERE TODAY.

IF WE ARE NOT FIXING THE PROBLEM, THAT WE CREATED, TELL ME WHAT WE ARE DOING?

>> IT'S GIVING IMMUNITY -- WE GIVE IMMUNITY ALL THE TIME OF THINGS THAT ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION AND IT DOESN'T REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.

>> THAT BILL, SENATE BILL 159 PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

SO WHERE ARE WE IN THE PROCESS.

IT TAKES FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS FOR A BILL TO BECOME A LAW.

TODAY WAS DAY THREE OF THAT PROCESS.

THE BILLS WILL GO TO THE OTHER CHAMBERS FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION ON TUESDAY WITH THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE FINAL PASSAGE ON WEDNESDAY.

AND BECAUSE WHAT THE HOUSE AND SENATE PASSED WERE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE TO IRON OUT THE DIFFERENCES COULD BE NEEDED.

ANOTHER IMPORTANT THINGS TO NOTE: THESE BILLS ARE MEANT TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE IVF LIABILITY ISSUE IN ORDER TO GET CLINICS OPERATIONAL AGAIN.

MANY ON BOTH SIDES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION ADDRESSING THE MORE LONG TERM FALLOUT FROM THE RULING MIGHT B NECESSARY.

WE WILL CONTINUE TO KEEP YOU UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST HERE ON CAPITOL JOURNAL.

THIS IVF ISSUE IS ONE THAT NO ONE EXPECTED TO COME UP THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION, AND CERTAINLY NOT TO CONSUME SO MUC TIME AND ATTENTION.

HOUSE SPEAKER NATHANIEL LEDBETTER SAID TODAY THAT, WHIL IT HAS BEEN IMPORTANT TO ADDRES THAT ISSUE, HE'S LOOKING FORWAR TO IT BEING DEALT WITH SO THE HOUSE CAN FOCUS ON OTHER ISSUES >> WE WANTED TO TRY TO GET THINGS OUT THERE AND GET THEM MOVING QUICKLY.

SOME ISSUES THE THAT AND HOUSE BOTH WANTED TO LOOK AT.

TO BE HONEST WITH YOU WE WILL PROBABLY DO TWO DAYS THIS WEEK BEFORE THE IVF THING COME UP.

IF YOU NECESSITY THE PROCESS WE HAVE TO HAVE THREE READINGS ON THE BILL BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE THE JOURNAL ON WHEN WE READ WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TO BE IN SESSION WHEN WE START THE PROCESS SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE WENT THREE DAYS THIS WEEK.

OUR GOAL WAS TO SKATE BACK BUT ME AND THE PRO TEM THOUGHT THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT NEEDED TO BE PASSED AND RIGHTFULLY SO.

I THINK WE DID THE RIGHT THING.

I ASKED THE MEMBERS AND THE LEADERSHIP IS THIS WHAT WE NEED TO DO MOVES FORWARD AND IT WAS A CONSENSUAL YES.

EVERY TIME WE PASS A BILL THERE'S UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES DOESN'T MATTER IF WE MEET THREE DAYS PA WEEK OR FIVE DAYS A WEEK.

THAT'S PART OF THE PROGRESSION.

STATUTORILY WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES IF IT BECOMES A BIG PROBLEM.

ALL OF BILLS HAVE BEEN VETTED.

WE GAVE THE COMMITTEES MORE POWER TO VET THEM IN COMMITTEE SO I THINK THE PROCESS HAS MOVED VERY WELL IF YOU CONSIDER THE HEAVY LIFTED THAT THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR THE FIRST PART OF THE SESSION.

>> AND THERE WAS A SIMILAR SENTIMENT IN THE SENATE.

MINORITY LEADER BOBBY SINGLETON SAID THAT BODY IS READY TO MOVE ON TO OTHER ISSUES.

HE PARTICULARLY MENTIONED GAMBLE.

HE SAID HE SUPPORTS THE LOTTERY, CASINO AND SPORTS BETTING PACKAGE PASSED BY THE HOUSE ABOUT YOU HE SPECS THE SENATE TO MAKE CHANGES TO THAT PLAN OR SUBSTITUTE THEIR OWN GAMBLING PACKAGE.

>> WELL, LOOK HERE.

I HAVE NOT BEEN IN ON ALL OF THE CONVERSATIONS.

YOU KNOW I HAVE BEEN RIGHT HERE FOR 20-PLUS YEARS.

YOU KNOW, I HAVE INTRODUCED ONE OF THE FIRST BUNCO BILLS THAT GOT PASSED FOR GREEN MAKE CON COUNTY BACK IN 2002.

I THINK THAT WE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE ROOM WHO REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, YOU KNOW, WHO REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON.

AND I MUST ADMIT I DID MEET WITH THEM.

AND THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE TABLE HOPEFULLY THAT OVER THE WEEKEND THAT WE CAN COME BACK WITH A DRAFT, PUT IT IN COMMITTEE BY TUESDAY AND BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN VOTED ON.

I LIKE WHAT THE HOUSE PUT OUT.

IF WE CAN TAKE WHAT THE HOUSE DID AND MOVE IT FORWARD BUT RIGHT NOW THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE ISSUE OR TO BE THE SOLUTION HERE.

SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS JUST TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING WHERE EVERYBODY IS INCLUDED.

I HAVE NOT READ WHAT IT IS BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THERE MAY BE SOMETHING COMING ON TUESDAY.

>> I THINK SO IT'S A REWRITE PARTIALLY.

I THINK IT'S A REWRITE.

FOR WHAT THE HOUSE HAS PASSED.

ABOUT YOU BECAUSE I HAVE NOT SEEN IT COULD I CANNOT BE CERTAIN FOR WHAT IT IS.

I WILL BE ADVOCATING FOR WHAT THE HOUSE PASSED.

THAT'S WHAT I WILL BE ADVOCATING FOR.

>> IT HAS BEEN A WILD WEEK HERE IN THE STATEHOUSE.

BE SURE TO WATCH OUR "CAPITOL JOURNAL" "WEEK IN REVIEW" SHOW ON FRIDAY TO CATCH UP WITH ALL THAT HAS GONE ON HERE.

>> SOME BREAKING NEWS THIS EVENING.

U.S.

SENATOR KATIE BEFORE IT HAS BEEN TAPPED TO DELIVER THE REPUBLICAN RESPONSE TO PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS.

THAT'S SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, MARCH 7, A WEEK FROM TODAY.

6 IT'S A HIGH HONOR FOR THE FIRST TERM SENATOR AND IT WILL PUT HER IN THE NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT.

HOUSE SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON AND SENATE MINORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL SAID THEY DECIDED BEFORE IT WAS THE RIGHT CHOICE TO DELIVER A REPUBLICAN RESPONSE TO BIDEN.

THINK SPECIFICALLY CITED HER STORY AS THE YOUNGEST REPUBLICAN WOMAN ELECTED TO THE SENATE AND THE ONLY REPUBLICAN MOTHER OF SCHOOL AGED CHILDREN AS A UNIQUELY EFFECTIVE NARRATIVE TO CONNECT WITH EVERY DAY AMERICANS.

WE WILL CERTAINLY BE WATCHING FOR THAT AND LOOKING FORWARD TO HAVE SENATOR BRIT BACK ON THE SHOW IN THE COMING, WE.

WHEN WE COME BACK MORE ON THE IVF ISSUE WITH SENATOR LARRY STUTTS WHO OFFERED A UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE ON THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION AS AN OB/GYN DOCTOR.

STAY WITH US.

B.

>> WELCOME BACK TO "CAPITOL JOURNAL."

JOINING ME NEXT IS STATE SENATOR LARRY STUTTS.

SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR COMING ON SHOW.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON TODAY.

>> WELL, IT WAS AN INTERESTING DAY IN THE SENATE.

YOU PASSED THIS BILL DEALING WITH IN VITRO FERTILIZATION.

I KNOW THIS IS A TOPIC PRETTY CLOSE TO YOU GIVEN YOUR PROFESSION AS AN OBSTETRICIAN; RIGHT?

TALK ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY PASSED AND HOW IT CAN HELP SOLVE THIS CRISES THAT HAS BECOME REALLY JUST IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS.

>> WELL, WHAT THE BILL THAT WE PASSED TODAY SIMPLY PROVIDED SOME HE CIVILITY AND CRIMINAL PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE IVF PROCESS.

AND I MEAN I THINK IN VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT RULING, WE HAD TO DO SOMETHING.

WE HAD TO MAKE A STATEMENT, AND BECAUSE OF THE CONCERN.

BUT WE DIDN'T NEED TO MAKE IT SO BROAD THAT WE DON'T ALSO -- YOU HAVE MIGHT SAY LEAVE ROOM FOR ERROR, IF A PATIENT IS TRULY WRONG, IF PRACTICE OUTSIDE OF THE STANDARD OF CARE OCCURS THEN YOU SHOULD NOT BE PROTECTED.

SO WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO PROTECT WITH THIS BILL WAS IF YOU'RE DOING THE NORMAL THINGS THAT WAUGH DO AND IN VITRO FERTILIZATION THEN YOU'RE PROTECTED FROM CIVIL AND CRIMINAL IMMUNITY.

>> YEAH, THAT'S THE CONCERN I HEARD FROM -- >> I MEAN, YOU ARE IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION, NOT PROTECTED FROM IMMUNITY.

>> RIGHT.

I GET YOU.

THAT'S WHAT I KEPT HEARING FROM SENATOR MADISON AND SOME OTHERS SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T HAVE THIS TOO BROAD BECAUSE THERE ARE LEGIT CLAIMS SOMEBODY COULD MAKE.

THERE ARE LEGIT LAWSUITS THAT COULD BE BROUGHT FOR MALFEASANCE, FOR PROBLEMS IN THE PROCESS.

SO DO YOU THINK THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE ADDED WILL COVER THAT AND THEN TAKE CARE OF THAT TOO BROAD ISSUE?

>> I THINK SO PRIMARILY.

I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE USED THE BILL THAT I HAD BECAUSE I SIMPLY SAID, IF YOU'RE PRACTICING WITHIN THE USUAL AND CUSTOMARY AREAS OF IVF THEN YOU'RE IMMUNE FROM THESE ISSUES, IN OTHER WORDS, WITH MY BILL WHAT YOU WERE DOING LAST MONTH, YOU CAN BE DOING RIGHT NOW.

BUT TRY TO GET TRIED TO GET INTO -- AND THAT'S WHY WE SPENT THE LAST THREE HOURS IN THE CHAMBER DEBATING ABOUT LIFE AND EMBRYOS AND DEBATING WHEN LIFE BEGINS AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS AND I -- MY POINT IS THAT IS SETTLED.

WE SETTLED THAT IN 2019 WITH A PRO-LIFE BILL.

AND FOR THE CURRENT SITUATION ALL WE NEEDED TO DO WAS SAY YOU CAN KEEP DOING WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING WITHOUT FEAR OF PROSECUTION.

SO INITIALLY THE BILL THAT ENDED UP PASSING WAS TOO BROAD, AND WE NARROWED IT DOWN WITH SOME AMENDMENTS.

WE OFFERED A SUBSTITUTE AND THE SUBSTITUTE TOOK OUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE TOO BROAD AND WE HAD THIS ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TODAY TO TAKE OUT THE WORD "GOODS" SO THAT IF YOU WERE PROVIDING SUPPLIES FOR IT AND YOUR SUPPLIES WERE DEFECTIVE THEN YOU WEREN'T MARCO RUBIO FROM LIABILITY.

>> I SEE.

WELL, THE PROCESS ISN'T OVER, THOUGH, BECAUSE THIS IS DIFFERENT NOW THAN WHAT THE HOUSE HAS PASSED SO THERE COULD BE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.

THERE COULD BE, YOU KNOW, BACK AND FORTH.

SO DO YOU SEE IN THE NEGOTIATIONS THAT WILL CONTINUE NEXT WEEK MAYBE GETTING SOME OF YOUR BILL'S LANGUAGE ADDED BACK, YOU KNOW -- >> MY BILL WAS TWO SENTENCES LONG SO THERE'S REALLY NOTHING TO ADD BACK.

JUST IF YOU'RE DOING THIS BEFORE YOU CAN STILL DO IT.

BUT THIS BILL IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ABSOLUTELY WORK WITH.

I'M NOT SOUR GRAPES OF NOT PASSING MY BILL.

I WANTED TO FIX THE ISSUE.

I'M JUST SAYING I THINK WE MADE THE ISSUE MORE COMP INDICATED THAN IT HAD TO BE.

>> WELL, YOU MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, PERSONHOOD, THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND ALL OF THAT.

ISM AND I HAVE TALKED WITH PLENTY OF LEGAL EXPERTS WHO SAY, YES, THE STATUTE IS ENOUGH.

WE DON'T NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

JUST UPON THIS VERY SPECIFIC ISSUE OF IVF AND ALLOWING THE CLINICS TO OPERATE WITHOUT LIABILITY.

HOWEVER, DON'T THE DEMOCRATS HAVE A POINT IN THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS COULD CROP BACK UP, ANOTHER LAWSUIT MAKES IT'S WAY UP AND AS LONG AS THAT AMENDMENT IS WORDED THE WAY IT IS, WHEN LIFE BEGINS, AND PROTECTIONS FROM PRO-LIFE, YOU KNOW, UNTIL THAT IS CHANGED OR ALTERED, WON'T WE BE BACK IN THE SITUATION AGAIN.

>> WE VERY WELL COULD BE.

THINGS WORK THEIR WAY THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM.

AND IN DEFENSE OF THAT, I THINK THE SUPREME COURT RIGHTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE DEBATING OVER THESE EMBRYOS IN IN VITRO FERTILIZATION DYING, THEN WE HAVE TO ADMIT THEY WERE ALIVE, YOU KNOW, WHAT WERE YOU BEFORE YOU DIED.

>> YOU WERE ALIVE.

AND IF IT'S ALIVE, THEN WHAT KIND OF LIFE IS IT?

AND SO -- >> PROTECTIONS?

>> WHAT KIND OF PROTECTIONS DOES IT DESERVE?

BECAUSE IF WE AGREE IT'S A LIFE IT CLEARLY HAS TO BE A HUMAN LIFE.

IT'S NOT POTENTIAL LIFE OR SOMEONE TRIED TO DEBATE WITH ME YESTERDAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE EMBRYOS, IF WE LAID THEM RIGHT HERE ON THIS LEDGE, THEY COULD NOT SURVIVE; RIGHT?

AND I SAID YEAH, THAT'S TRUE.

AND I SAID YEAH WE CAN MAKE EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT FOR IF WE LAID A ONE-MONTH-OLD BABY ON THIS FLOOR, IT COULDN'T SURVIVE, IF WE JUST LAID IT THERE AND LEFT IT.

AND I SAID, SO, THE ONLY ISSUE IS THAT EITHER OF THEM REQUIRED IS TEMPERATURE CONTROL AND NUTRITION.

AND TIME.

SO THE DEBATE TO ME IN MY MIND, THE DEBATE OF WHEN A LIFE BEGINS, IT BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.

AND SO I'M VERY COMFORTABLE WITH DEFENDING THAT BUT ALSO DEFENDING THE PRACTICE OF IN VITRO FERTILIZATION.

I MEAN -- AS YOU KNOW I'M AN OB/GYN DOCTOR.

I HAVE DONE A LOT OF INFERTILITY STUFF AND REFERRED A LOT OF PATIENTS FOR IN VITRO FERTILIZATION AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S A RIGHT WAY AND WRONG WAY TO DO IT.

BUT IF YOU DO IT THE RIGHT WAY, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO ARGUE OVER ALTHOUGH OF THESE MORAL ISSUES THE IN VITRO FERTILIZATION PRACTICES THAT ARE DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO DESTROY EMBRYOS.

THEY'RE TRYING TO CREATE EMBRYOS.

AND WE NEED TO REALIZE THAT.

>> I GUESS THAT'S THE THING.

THAT'S THE THINGS.

YOU DRAW IT OUT TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION AND YOU GET RULINGS LIKE THIS AND YOU GET -- WE HAVE TO TREAT EVERY FROZEN EMBRYO AS A CHILD AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

ARE YOU SAYING THERE ARE DIFFERENT CLASSES?

DIFFERENT -- THERE'S LAWS THAT SHOULD APPLY DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT STAGES OF LIFE?

IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN OR IS IT A BEST PRACTICES KIND OF THING.

>> OH, I THINK IT'S BEST PRACTICES BECAUSE IF YOU REALLY PRACTICE YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE REAL PRINCIPLES OF MEDICINE IS FIRST DO NO HARM.

AND IF YOU REALLY PRACTICE THE RIGHT TYPE OF INFERTILITY MEDICINE YOU STAY OUT OF ALL OF THESE SITUATIONS.

YOU DON'T TRY TO IMPLANT A WHOLE BUNCH OF EMBRYOS, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE HAD MAY BE SELECTIVELY FERTILIZE ONLY SO MANY EGGS, YOU KNOW, YOU TALKS TO YOUR PATIENT AHEAD OF TIME ABOUT THESE ISSUES AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE DONATING ANY EXTRA EMBRYOS THAT YOU HAVE?

AND IF THEY SAY NO THEN WE'RE NOT GOING TO FERTILIZE EXTRA EMBRYOS.

AND SO WITH A LITTLE BIT OF PLANNING AHEAD AND DISCUSSING THESE ISSUES AHEAD OF TIME, IF YOU'RE REALLY A GOOD INFERTILITY PRACTICE, YOU KEEP YOURSELF OUT OF THOSE SITUATIONS.

>> WELL, DO YOU KNOW WHEN, YOU'RE AN ON BEGIN.

AND THAT'S INTERESTING IN THIS DISCUSSION.

IN FACT IT WAS INTERESTING IN COMMITTEE, YOU AND CHAIRMAN MELSON ARE BOTH MEDICAL DOCTORS.

YOU KNOW YOUR STUFF ON THIS.

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE SEEN OUT THERE REPORTED THAT IS GETTING IT WRONG THAT WE WOULD WANT TO CLEAR UPPER AS A DOCTOR, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING ABOUT THESE ISSUES?

>> WELL, THAT INFERTILITY DOCTORS PRACTICES IN GENERAL ARE NOT DOING THE RIGHT THING.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM R THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM ARE PRACTICING ETHICAL MEDICINE.

THEY'RE TRYING TO HELP THEIR PATIENTS.

THEY'RE TRYING TO HELP THEIR PATIENTS GET PREGNANT.

I MEAN, ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE THINK OF IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM ARE DOING IT EXACTLY RIGHT.

AND THE ONES THAT OVERREACTED, WE'RE SUSPENDING OUR PRACTICE, WE'RE STOPPING, WE CAN'T DO THIS, WE WILL BE CHARGED WITH MURDER -- I MEAN, THAT'S -- THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

THAT WAS THE MAJOR -- >> THAT WAS AN OVEREACTION.

>> THAT WAS AN ABSOLUTE REACTION TO TRY TO WEAPON NEWS THIS COURT DECISION.

SO I THINK THE COURT DECISION WAS; RIGHT.

AND IF YOU DO THE RIGHT THING YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FIND YOURSELF IN NIECE POSITIONS.

>> THAT'S INTERESTING.

WHAT IS THE FEEDBACK THEN -- ARE I THINK EVERY LAWMAKER I TALKED TO SAID THEY HEARD FROM FOLKS THEY NEVER HE HEARD FROM BEFORE AND A LOT DEFER KIND OF SURPRISING HOW MANY FAMILIES ARE INVOLVED THIS RIGHT NOW.

HAS IT BEEN THE SAME FOR YOU?

>> IT HAS.

I HAVE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF EMAILS.

AND LIKE I SAID I EXPECTED IT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE REAL DATA, THEY INDEFINITE ALL HAVE IVF BUT ABOUT 10 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION HAS AN INFERTILITY ISSUE.

SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS RARE.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, MEDICAL PRACTICE YOU DEAL WITH ALL THE TIME.

AND WHEN 10 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION IS AFFECTED BY INFER TILT, NOW -- NOW SOME OF THEM ARE VERY SIMPLE AND DON'T END AT THE END OF THE PROCESS HAVING IVF BUT THAT'S STILL A LARGE NUN OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY INFERTILITY TO SOME DEGREE.

AND SO, YEAH, I'M NOT SURPRISED TO HEAR FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE.

>> IT HAS BEEN INTERESTING JUST HOW WIDE THIS STORY HAS BECOME.

LET ME GO BACK TO THE WHOLE THING ABOUT LIABILITY.

YOU KNOW I HAVE HEARD ONE SOLUTION COULD BE WAFERS.

A WAFER THAT YOU WOULD SIGN FOR A CLINIC, YOU KNOW, FREEING THEM FROM LIABILITY ON INFERTILITY.

WOULD THAT BE A TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION TO THIS OR -- >> WELL, I'M OBVIOUS LIVE NOT LAWYER AND I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, IF YOU -- >> LIKE IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD EVEN CONSIDER?

>> I MEAN, YOU SIGN, YOU KNOW, A PERMIT BEFORE SURGERY, YOU KNOW, AND THAT EXPLAINS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT COULD GO WRONG.

AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, ACTION IN INFERTILITY PRACTICE YOU'RE GOING TO ADDRESS THESE THINGS ON THE FRONT END OF TALKING TO YOUR PATIENT AND THE VERY FACT THAT THEY'RE AT THEIR POINT, THEY ALREADY KNOW THEY HAD TROUBLE GETTING PREGNANT OR THEY WOULDN'T BE AT THE POINT OF IVF.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF, YOU KNOW, THE WAFERS WOULD -- LIKE I SAID AGAIN I'M NOT A LAWYER.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAIVER STANDS UP IN COURT OR IF YOU -- YOU KNOW, AGAIN, MY PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY IS YOU DEAL THAT WITH JUST ONE-ON-ONE COMMUNICATION, AND I LOOK YOU IN THE EYE AND TELL YOU THIS IS WHAT OKAY GO WRONG, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO, AND NOT -- NOT TRY TO OUTLINE EVERY POSSIBLE THING IN SOME KIND OF WAIVER BECAUSE YOU CAN ALWAYS FIND SOMETHING THAT WASN'T IN THE WAIVER.

>> THAT'S PAT LAWYERS DO.

>> RIGHT.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.

THIS IS AN ISSUE WE'RE FOLLOWING CLOSELY AND I APPRECIATE YOUR EXPERTISE AND TIME TO COME ON THE SHOW.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON.

ANYTIME.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> THAT'S OUR SHOW FOR TONIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

HOPE YOU WILL JOIN US TOMORROW NIGHT FOR "CAPITOL JOURNAL'S" "WEEK IN REVIEW."

BUT MAKE A NOTE: THE SHOW WILL START A LITTLE LATER THAN NORMAL.

WE'RE PROUD TO BE AIRING THE ALABAMA HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS ON APT AND THOSE GAMES ARE SCHEDULED TO GO UNTIL 8:00 ON FRIDAY, IF THERE'S NO OVERTIME OF COURSE.

SO WE WILL BE ON THE AIR FOLLOWING THE FINALITY GAME.

FOR OUR "CAPITOL JOURNAL" TEAM, I'M TODD STACEY.