The Texas Supreme Court on Friday declined to consider the case of three frozen embryos of a Texas couple who divorced before the woman underwent in vitro fertilization, the AP/New York Times reports. Several hours before a woman named Augusta Roman was scheduled to undergo IVF, her husband at the time, Randy Roman, insisted that the procedure be canceled and that the embryos be frozen. The couple later began divorce proceedings.
In the case, Augusta Roman is seeking to have the three embryos that survived the freezing process implanted, and Randy Roman is seeking to have them destroyed or to remain frozen indefinitely.
A Houston trial court ordered the embryos turned over to Augusta Roman, but an appeals court ruled in favor of Randy Roman. The state Supreme Court did not issue an opinion in the case. According to the AP/Times, a "major piece of evidence" in the case was a consent form the Romans signed on March 27, 2002, that said the embryos would be discarded in the case of divorce.
I feel very sorry for her.Posted by: TexasRed at August 31, 2007 1:39 PM
I'm glad, but why, TR?Posted by: Jill Stanek at August 31, 2007 1:55 PM
I'm amazed that you glossed over the big embryo story of the day. (..Not to mention a prayer-in-school story.)
Illinois is TRULY headed in the right (Left?) direction. I can't wait for November '08!
Governor allows stem-cell funding
New law aims to spur medical research
By Monique Garcia | Tribune staff reporter
August 29, 2007
In an effort to woo researchers and investors to Illinois, Gov. Rod Blagojevich Tuesday signed a bill that allows public funding of research on all types of stem cells, including controversial embryonic stem cells.
Supporters hope the legislation, sponsored by state Sen. Jeff Schoenberg (D-Evanston) and state Rep. Tom Cross (R-Oswego), will pave the way for groundbreaking research that has been caught in the middle of a national political debate.
"Stem-cell research has limitless potential to help cure devastating diseases -- from Parkinson's to diabetes and even many forms of cancer," Blagojevich said in a written statement. "Since the federal government continues to stall the medical advancements that will come with stem-cell research, it is up to Illinois to take action."
In June, President Bush vetoed legislation for the second consecutove year that would have eased restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
Although no money is directly tied to the Illinois law, the bill's sponsors said they would seek to secure millions in funding over the next few months.
The measure, which bans human cloning, ensures researchers could work with embryonic stem cells in Illinois, which typically come from early-stage human embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization. Groups opposed to abortion argue the research requires the destruction of human embryos and is immoral. Proponents say embryonic stem cells offer the best chance of treating or curing many debilitating diseases.
The law also establishes procedures for couples to donate their unused in-vitro fertilization treatments for research and authorizes the Illinois Department of Public Health to administer the Illinois Regenerative Medicine Institute to give grants for research.
Blagojevich created the institute two years ago with an executive order, allocating $15 million for stem-cell research.
One institution to receive funding is the Children's Memorial Research Center, which is using stem cells to try to reverse the progression of diseases such as epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.
Also on Tuesday, Blagojevich vetoed a bill requiring teachers to observe a moment of silence at the start of each school day.
"I believe this is the right balance between the principles echoed in our constitution, and our deeply held desire to practice our faith," he said.
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
"a "major piece of evidence" in the case was a consent form the Romans signed on March 27, 2002, that said the embryos would be discarded in the case of divorce."
There is a red flag if i've ever seen one!
Well, here's a case where she signed the consent form to have them put to death. She has nobody to blame but herself.
That said, it is so, so wrong to allow any destruction of IVF embryos. Nobody can pretend that these "kidsickles" are just an unplanned by-product of sexual activity. People go to a lot of pain, trouble, and expense to create human life. Having done that, deliberately creating new human beings, they should have 100 percent responsibility for nurturing and caring for them. Period, paragraph.
I wish the prolife movement would be on this more. A lot of prolifers don't even know how many deliberately created babies are killed in IVF clinics My own sister, who is prolife, considred IVF until I pointed out that they create "surplus" embryos that end up stuck in the fridge or flushed down the sink. That led her to reject that option.Posted by: Christina at August 31, 2007 6:51 PM
I'm glad, but why, TR?
Posted by: Jill Stanek at August 31, 2007 1:55 PM
Because this is her only chance to have children and she wants them very much. The husband also sounds like a fruitcake - I think his initial excuse for not 'letting' her go ahead with the implantation the first time was because HE decided she wasnt 'right with god'. Its a shame he can stand in her way out of what just sounds like petty mean heartedness.
Would the guy be held liable for child support? The agreement in the case of divorce sounds like they had foreseen the possibility, but if he isn't going to have to pay then I don't see what his big objection would be.
DougPosted by: Doug at September 1, 2007 10:19 AM
Well it is after all, all about what the "WOMAN" wants, isn't it?Posted by: mk at September 1, 2007 10:51 AM
MK, yes - I agree and don't see what the big objection would be on that alone.
They have an agreement that they're not going to do this - implant the embryos, and if she wants to go ahead and do it then I see no big problem with it, but don't think he should have to pay for it.
DougPosted by: Doug at September 1, 2007 11:49 AM
Ok, so this isn't about the original post, but it has to do with genetics
Here's a quote I found by a pro-choicer about down syndrome.
"Choosing to have a retarded child is a moral atrocity. There's no way to get around the fact that Down syndrome causes suffering in everyone involved. The parents who support bringing more people burdened with this illness into the world only want to extend their and their children's suffering to everyone else. They should be named for what they are - evil.
Every child should be loved and valued - but a fetus is not a child until he or she is born - and what kind of perverted monster do you have to be to want your children to suffer their entire life? Only the religious dogma behind the hypocritical "culture of life" is capable of sinking people to this level."
Posted by: lauren
at September 1, 2007 7:11 PM
I post this only to show that there *are* people who think this way and they *do* vilify parents who don't abort.
After I gave birth to my fourth, at my six week checkup (I was 32 at the time) the doctor I was going to said "you're getting older now so I'm going to fit you with a diaphram" I was so shocked...I said I'm only thirty two! She said "and don't worry if it doesn't work, I'll take care of it for you"...She wouldn't let me leave without the diaphram...I took it, walked out of the examining room, dropped it in the garbage can in her office, walked out and never looked back.
When I was 42 and pregnant with my 6th, the doctor kept pushing me and pushing me to have anmnio...I kept refusing. Johnny is now perfectly healthy and going on 8...and this was a pro-life doctor!
You are correct when you say there is a warped mindset out there, and anything less than perfect must be eliminated. And they DO push!Posted by: mk at September 1, 2007 8:22 PM
Lauren - good post and I agree with you there - and in fact that poster is indeed actually "pro-abortion" in that case, and not pro-choice.
That post sounds a bit over-the-top to me, like somebody is trying to push buttons, but even if they're totally serious then they are simply wrong about those children suffering their entire lives - that's obviously false; there's no way they can know that nor does it make sense to think it's going to be that way for any given Down's kid.
I think it's crazy to tell somebody what to do in that case or any other case. If the pregnancy is wanted that poster is nobody to tell others what to do.
DougPosted by: Doug at September 1, 2007 8:25 PM
MK, I just saw something a few days ago saying that more healthy children are killed because of complications do to amnio's than DS children who are aborted do to positive results.
Seems like our KILL KILL KILL attitude is very sadly backfireing.Posted by: lauren at September 2, 2007 9:04 PM
Can you post it? Unbelievable!Posted by: mk at September 3, 2007 7:25 AM
Lauren, with my third pregnancy, I felt/ was pressured into amnio I hear now that they want to do it, no matter what the age of the woman. Why? I don't know. I agreed to the test. I never would have aborted though.Posted by: Heather at September 4, 2007 7:53 AM