Every time \u201chuman embryo rights\u201d becomes a topic of discussion, it reignites an ethical debate as to whether embryos should be considered persons, property, or should be placed in an \u201cin between\u201d category.<\/p>\n
A Missouri bill is aiming to provide legal guidelines to be used in frozen embryo disputes. It\u2019s moving through the state\u2019s legislature right now, having been approved by the Missouri House and awaiting a vote by the Senate.<\/p>\n
House Bill 2258 is synonymous with Jalesia McQueen, 44, an immigration attorney who helped write the bill. McQueen started this movement after losing an embryo custody battle with her ex-husband. Although she had twin sons during her marriage, the fate of two embryos created with McQueen\u2019s ex-husband remains in limbo.<\/p>\n
Despite McQueen\u2019s best efforts, if the Senate approves the bill, reproductive rights in the state, and perhaps across the nation, could be in jeopardy.<\/p>\n
According to Jezebel.com reporter Stassa Edwards, the Missouri Bill is co-sponsored by Missouri Right to Life along with other pro-life activist groups.<\/p>\n
The bill mandates that Missouri judges should rule, \u201c\u2026in the manner that provides the best chances for the in vitro human embryo to develop and grow.\u201d Edwards added, \u201cIn short, judges would be barred from ordering the destruction of an embryo and embryos would be given to whichever parent\/donor wants to either preserve or implant those embryos. The bill has exceptions for child support and allows the court to terminate the parental rights of the opposing donor (meaning, the opposing parent\/donor is off the hook both legally and financially).\u201d<\/p>\n
When couples divorce, the process includes the division of assets and child custody determinations. In light of advanced third-party reproduction techniques, embryo reconciliation is now part of the equation.<\/p>\n
Many voice concerns that embryos should not be viewed as \u201cproperty.\u201d<\/p>\n
Although IVF clinics have their patients sign consent forms, including choices for embryo disposition in the event of a couple\u2019s divorce or death, these contracts have been contested. The court rulings which have followed have varied considerably.<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026many of the contracts have not held up in court; either parents change their mind or judges throw the contracts out, preferring what\u2019s called a \u2018balance approach,\u2019 where the judge attempts to weigh the preferences and rights of both individuals. The result is a horde of conflicting case law,\u201d Edwards writes.<\/p>\n
While the Missouri bill tries to resolve such conflict, it overlooks as ethical dilemma: whether a person should be forced into biological parenthood against his or her wishes.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe law essentially attempts to sidestep the ethical and legal questions of compelling another person to be a biological parent against their will, ironically treating the objections of a potential parent as little more than a financial question,\u201d Edwards writes. She added, \u201cMore controversially, the bill compels a judge to treat an embryo as a life, effectively positioning personhood at the moment of fertilization.\u201d<\/p>\n
As one can imagine, the opposition to this bill has come out in droves. While some may admire McQueen\u2019s passion in \u201crighting\u201d her personal legal matter, if this bill gets sanctioned, it could trigger a ripple effect of repercussions.<\/p>\n