This article misses an important fact about the ruling. It totally omits all the blatant religious content of the ruling.
The legal heart of it might have been the notion that if we protect malfeasance against unborn children in the womb, we ought to do the same with unborn children outside of it. However, the language was taken directly from the Fetal Personhood movement, and is written with reference to particular religious beliefs.
That’s why IVF providers in Alabama got so panicked. It’s not necessarily that they were held liable for this accident. It was the Alabama Supreme Court signaling that they will look favorably at future challenges in other cases based on the same religious grounds. All the Fetal Personhood advocates just got told to file all the lawsuits they can afford, because the SC will have their back.