• qooqie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Honestly, what is keeping anyone with frozen eggs/embryos or whatever from claiming them as dependents based on the ruling?

    • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      9 months ago

      I totally fucking would. It would do one of two things:

      1. The Alabama state government would make me a multi-millionaire overnight.

      2. completely reverse the ruling.

    • MagicShel
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      9 months ago

      For real? I think you’d need to get them SSNs, which might be a problem without a birth certificate or even birthday. That being said, if you are responsible for nurturing them and keeping them alive I’d say that’s a clear dependency, so I think you’d have a bureaucratic nightmare but a fun court case.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          “Birth Certificates are discriminatory against the unborn. The government should be required to issue Pre-birth certificates so that SSNs can be assigned to children yet to be born.” -Future GOP policy champion probably

    • GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      By that same logic, could a business owner of a corporation claim said corporation as a dependent because corporations are people now?

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The IRS doesn’t agree and you’d have to sue them most likely. I doubt then the Alabama tax office would allow it.