US Supreme Court refuses to hear embryo appeal
Progress Educational Trust19 May 2008
Augusta Roman sought a ruling that would allow her to implant the stored embryos created in 2002 using her own eggs, and sperm donated by her husband at the time, Randy Roman. The couple entered into an agreement to the effect that upon divorce, any embryos that were not implanted would be discarded. It is reported that Randy withdrew his consent just hours before Augusta was to undergo a procedure to implant the embryos, after which he issued divorce proceedings.
Augusta would not agree to destroy the embryos, and initially won the right to use them after the district court ruled it was her constitutional right to do so. The decision was later reversed by the Texas First Court of Appeals, which ruled the couple had made a contractual and binding agreement to destroy the embryos if they divorced. It is the second time Augusta has applied to the US Supreme Court for an appeal, the first application being refused last April.
In other jurisdictions the courts have also ruled in this way. In the UK, Natalie Evans tried and failed to convince the courts to allow her to use frozen embryos created using the sperm of her former partner, after he had withdrawn consent. Natalie Evans unsuccessfully took her case to the European Court of Human Rights and then the Grand Chamber last year when it ruled that her right to become a parent should not be afforded more weight than her ex-partner's right not to become a parent.
In Ireland, the High Court ruled against Mary Roche who also wanted to implant stored embryos after her husband had withdrawn his consent upon the couple's separation. The Court later held in a separate ruling that frozen embryos were not covered under the 1983 constitutional abortion amendment protecting the right to life of 'the unborn' and that destroying them was permissible under Irish law.
In the US, Randy Roman's lawyer, Greg Enos, said that the case reveals how contracts over the use of stored embryos will be upheld. 'This landmark case for Texas now makes it clear that couples will be bound by the agreements they sign with fertility clinics,' he said: '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'.
Reproduced with permission from BioNews, an email and online sources of news, information and comment on assisted reproduction and genetics.