A lawsuit is underway in Virginia to find out whether state law allows frozen embryos to be considered property that will be divided and assigned a monetary value.
Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge Dontae Bugg heard arguments Thursday from a divorced couple who disagree over the ex-wife’s desire to make use of two embryos they created at their wedding.
Honeyhline Heidemann says the embryos are her last probability to father a biological child after cancer treatment left her infertile. Jason Heidemann says he doesn’t wish to be forced to turn into the biological father of one other child.
The case gained national attention last yr when one other judge, Richard Gardiner, ruled that embryos could possibly be considered “goods or chattels” that could possibly be shared under state law, and his evaluation was based partly on a nineteenth century law Regulation of the treatment of slaves.
Gardiner is not any longer assigned to the case for reasons unrelated to his invocation of slavery as a precedent.
The case also comes at a time when reproductive rights activists have expressed concern a few ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court Embryos could possibly be considered children under the law of that state.
There is little case law regarding embryo treatment in Virginia.
Honeyhline Heidemann’s lawsuit was filed under a partition law that governs the division of property between interested parties.
Jason Heidemann’s attorney, Carrie Patterson, argued that there was no precedent for this because this law was not intended to cope with embryos. Its primary purpose is to control the division of real estate.
Existing national case law on embryos recognizes that they usually are not mere property, she said, but fairly property with special characteristics that require courts to balance competing interests.
When assessing such cases, a judge must consider, amongst other things, an individual’s “right to reproductive autonomy.” In this case, Patterson said her client has a powerful interest in avoiding procreation against his will.
Honeyhline Heidemann’s attorney, Jason Zellman, argued that the division law applies if the embryos are classified as property and a monetary value will be assigned to them.
Documents each Heidemanns signed with the IVF provider specifically referred to the embryos as property, he said, and their value could due to this fact be assessed as the prices incurred in producing them.
Because there are two embryos, he added, the judge has a straightforward option to divide the assets: give each party one embryo.
Bugg, who said he would make a choice at a later date, expressed concerns concerning the idea of assigning a monetary value to the embryos.
Zellman acknowledged that the case raises some latest issues, but additionally suggested to the judge that there was no must “make headlines” or set a sweeping precedent. He said the unique facts of Heidemann’s case – including language of their divorce agreement requiring the embryos to be stored “pending a court order” – would distinguish it from future disputes.
The judge readily accepted that notion, saying, “I don’t believe what I’m doing in this case applies to anyone but the Heidemanns.”
