Case Title: James LePage and Emily LePage, individually and as parents and next friends of two deceased LePage embryos, Embryo A and Embryo B; and William Tripp Fonde and Caroline Fonde, individually and as parents and next friends of two deceased Fonde embryos, Embryo C and Embryo D v. The Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C., and Mobile Infirmary Association d/b/a Mobile Infirmary Medical Center (Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court: CV-21-901607).

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2024-05-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
Rel: May 3, 2024 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern 
Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other 
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
 
OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024 
 
_________________________ 
 
SC-2022-0515 
_________________________ 
 
James LePage and Emily LePage, individually and as parents 
and next friends of two deceased LePage embryos, Embryo A 
and Embryo B; and William Tripp Fonde and Caroline Fonde, 
individually and as parents and next friends of two deceased 
Fonde embryos, Embryo C and Embryo D  
 
v.  
 
The Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C., and 
Mobile Infirmary Association d/b/a Mobile Infirmary Medical 
Center 
 
 
Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court 
(CV-21-901607) 
 
SC-2022-0515; SC-2022-0579 
 
2 
 
 
_________________________ 
 
SC-2022-0579 
_________________________ 
 
Felicia Burdick-Aysenne and Scott Aysenne, in their individual 
capacities and as parents and next friends of Baby Aysenne, 
deceased embryo/minor  
 
v.  
 
The Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C., and Mobile 
Infirmary Association d/b/a Mobile Infirmary Medical Center 
 
 
 
Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court 
(CV-21-901640) 
 
On Applications for Rehearing 
 
MITCHELL, Justice. 
 
 
SC-2022-0515 -- APPLICATION OVERRULED.  NO OPINION. 
 
 
SC-2022-0579 -- APPLICATION OVERRULED.  NO OPINION. 
 
Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., 
concur. 
Sellers, J., dissents, with opinion. 
Cook, J., dissents. 
 
 
SC-2022-0515; SC-2022-0579 
 
3 
 
 
SELLERS, Justice (dissenting). 
 
One of the cardinal rules of jurisprudence is that judicial decisions 
should follow reason and logic so that no one is ever truly surprised by 
them. Indeed, an important role of the judicial branch is to ensure that 
the rules governing society create stability and certainty that comport 
with the English concept of "the law of the land," i.e., to reflect the 
common experience, tradition, and culture of citizens over the 
philosophical, creative, and speculative.  
 
As a court, we labor in anonymity, far away from the tensions 
experienced by other branches of government. This case has removed us 
from any notion of ivory-tower isolation and has subjected us to the 
scrutiny of world opinion, thrusting us into a public discussion that was 
as unwarranted as it was unanticipated. 
 
While many of our opinions have unintended consequences, 
oftentimes such consequences nevertheless are foreseeable because our 
decisions impact others who, although they were not parties to the case, 
were generally aware of the potential repercussions of a reasonable 
decision. In this case, our decision was a surprise, if not a shock, to our 
citizens. The majority opinion on original submission had significant and 
SC-2022-0515; SC-2022-0579 
 
4 
 
 
sweeping implications for individuals who were entirely unassociated 
with the parties in the case. Many of those individuals had no reason to 
believe that a legal and routine medical procedure would be delayed, 
much less denied, as a result of this Court's opinion. 
 
Because those individuals never had an opportunity to submit 
briefs in this case to explain their positions and the law supporting them, 
they now have a new regime that has been forced upon them for which 
they had neither input, nor redress, nor a hearing. The majority opinion 
on original submission also addressed issues and arguments that were 
never raised in the parties' initial briefs and never argued by the parties. 
It is for these reasons that I would have granted the request to conduct 
oral argument on the applications for rehearing, including providing the 
various amici curiae an opportunity to voice their concerns, to explain the 
legal bases of their positions, and to highlight the various loose ends left 
dangling by this Court's opinion. 
 
In light of the foregoing, and consistent with my special writing on 
original submission, I respectfully dissent from the denial of the 
applications for rehearing, especially the denial of oral argument on 
rehearing.