Reproductive rights redux
In an interesting timed non-decision, the Supreme Court figured out what's on my mind today: A Houston-area nurse has lost her U.S. Supreme Court bid to gain access to test-tube embryos she and her ex-husband created before their divorce.
Augusta Roman, 46, had sought to have an embryo implanted in her womb in what she hoped would be a successful effort to become a mother. But in April, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal of a Texas court's finding that the embryos should be discarded.
Roman, who is childless, again petitioned the court to hear her case. On Monday the court turned her down.
The case stemmed from efforts of Roman and her husband, Randy, to become parents. In 2002, the embryos were created through in-vitro fertilization and frozen at a Webster fertility clinic. Roman and her husband signed an agreement that the embryos would be discarded in the event of divorce.
Randy Roman, who according to court documents balked just hours before his wife was to have an embryo implanted, filed for divorce in December 2002.
"This landmark case for Texas now makes it clear that couples will be bound by the agreements they sign with fertility clinics," Randy Roman's attorney Greg Enos said in an e-mail. "Augusta Roman would have been much better off five years ago trying to have children with an anonymous sperm donor rather than wasting tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees and five years trying to get out of the specific legal agreement she signed."
I by and large agree with the decision, though I feel sorry for the woman, and I think the attorney's comments were unnecessarily cruel. The father withdrew his consent, and there was a specific agreement that called for the descruction of the embryos should there be a divorce.
It's interesting, of course, that the right-to-life crowd is relatively silent (though I'm avoiding reading the Chronicle comments on this one). I imagine that they'd be more pro-implantation than they'd be pro-destruction.
Augusta Roman, 46, had sought to have an embryo implanted in her womb in what she hoped would be a successful effort to become a mother. But in April, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal of a Texas court's finding that the embryos should be discarded.
Roman, who is childless, again petitioned the court to hear her case. On Monday the court turned her down.
The case stemmed from efforts of Roman and her husband, Randy, to become parents. In 2002, the embryos were created through in-vitro fertilization and frozen at a Webster fertility clinic. Roman and her husband signed an agreement that the embryos would be discarded in the event of divorce.
Randy Roman, who according to court documents balked just hours before his wife was to have an embryo implanted, filed for divorce in December 2002.
"This landmark case for Texas now makes it clear that couples will be bound by the agreements they sign with fertility clinics," Randy Roman's attorney Greg Enos said in an e-mail. "Augusta Roman would have been much better off five years ago trying to have children with an anonymous sperm donor rather than wasting tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees and five years trying to get out of the specific legal agreement she signed."
I by and large agree with the decision, though I feel sorry for the woman, and I think the attorney's comments were unnecessarily cruel. The father withdrew his consent, and there was a specific agreement that called for the descruction of the embryos should there be a divorce.
It's interesting, of course, that the right-to-life crowd is relatively silent (though I'm avoiding reading the Chronicle comments on this one). I imagine that they'd be more pro-implantation than they'd be pro-destruction.