Appeals court rules egg donor in surrogate case has parental rights

[Judi Lynn]

September 9, 2005

Last modified September 9, 2005 - 7:57 am

Appeals court rules egg donor in surrogate case has parental rights
Associated Press

AKRON, Ohio - A woman who sold her eggs has parental rights to the resulting triplets, an Ohio appeals court said in the latest twist to a custody battle that has crossed into courts in several U.S. states.

The court ordered a new custody hearing in Ohio for the now-22-month-old boys, overturning a Summit County, Ohio judge's decision against parental rights for Jennifer Michelle Rice of Arlington, Texas.

It also contradicted a Pennsylvania court, which in January awarded primary custody to the surrogate mother, a rarity in such cases, and weekend visitation to the father.

The Ohio appeals court said Wednesday that the Pennsylvania court was wrong by not giving Rice a chance to fight for custody and by terminating her parental rights. It also said that court's ruling did not apply in Ohio.
(snip/...)

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/09/09/build/nation/65-tripletscase.inc

[northzax]

1. and so dies surrogate motherhood

sperm donation and the like. Why does her egg mean more than my sperm if I donate to a sperm bank?

[MADem]

2. Sounds like sloppy paperwork, to me

There should have been some sort of very precise pre-implant agreement signed. It clearly was not a SALE, as sales imply payment made for item of value received, and generally do not permit the seller the continued benefit of the value after the transaction.

I know there are plenty of cases like this that go off without a hitch, but when there is a screw-up, it always seems to be huge, expensive, and no one gives a real shit about the KIDS.

[Southpaw Bookworm]

3. Wow, this is gonna get interesting

:popcorn:

Read a great book on the history of IVF that addresses one of the reasons why situations like this arise. From the first research into reproductive technology, the U.S. has had a "don't ask, don't tell" approach because of the fear from scientists and government agencies that any attempt to discuss ethical issues and institute regulations would bring out the crazies. A fear that was borne out many times. (Interesting anecdote: One of NIH's attempts to convene a scientific discussion on IVF was picketed by a group of local Catholic school girls, led by Maria Shriver, now wife to the Gropenator.) Thus, everything ends up decided in the courts, and marginally ethical practices (such as implanting too many embryos, which can lead to litters of newborns like the McCaugheys) slide by because there is no oversight.

[iverglas]

8. interesting, and true

From the first research into reproductive technology, the U.S. has had a "don't ask, don't tell" approach because of the fear from scientists and government agencies that any attempt to discuss ethical issues and institute regulations would bring out the crazies.

Here in Canada ... and most other places ... the exact opposite is true. We have had years-long debate, consultations, roving commissions (a great Canadian tradition), and examination of every ethical and scientific nook and cranny of the situation.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/genetics_reproduction/rgtech.html

The Assisted Human Reproduction Act
CBC News Online | May 9, 2002 Updated March 2004

The federal government has passed legislation banning human cloning, rent-a-womb contracts and the sale of human eggs and sperm, its latest attempt to make laws to govern assisted human reproduction.

Bill C-13 received royal assent from Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarkson On March 26, 2004.

The bill has two goals – to help people have children safely, and to make sure research into new reproductive technology is morally sound.

It not only outlines what practices are forbidden, but also what practices are allowed and how they should be regulated. The law bans areas such as human cloning, and buying and selling human embryos, as well as regulations for such things as in vitro fertilization and the licensing of research.

The debate continues. The Act is here:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/A-13.4/2389.html

2. The Parliament of Canada recognizes and declares that

(a) the health and well-being of children born through the application of assisted human reproductive technologies must be given priority in all decisions respecting their use;

(b) the benefits of assisted human reproductive technologies and related research for individuals, for families and for society in general can be most effectively secured by taking appropriate measures for the protection and promotion of human health, safety, dignity and rights in the use of these technologies and in related research;

(c) while all persons are affected by these technologies, women more than men are directly and significantly affected by their application and the health and well-being of women must be protected in the application of these technologies;

(d) the principle of free and informed consent must be promoted and applied as a fundamental condition of the use of human reproductive technologies;

(e) persons who seek to undergo assisted reproduction procedures must not be discriminated against, including on the basis of their sexual orientation or marital status;

(f) trade in the reproductive capabilities of women and men and the exploitation of children, women and men for commercial ends raise health and ethical concerns that justify their prohibition; and

(g) human individuality and diversity, and the integrity of the human genome, must be preserved and protected.

6. (1) No person shall pay consideration to a female person to be a surrogate mother, offer to pay such consideration or advertise that it will be paid. ...

7. (1) No person shall purchase, offer to purchase or advertise for the purchase of sperm or ova from a donor or a person acting on behalf of a donor. ...

The legislation leaves it open to individuals to donate reproductive materials, or perform reproductive services, for altruistic reasons (or for whatever reasons might prompt someone to do it without payment).

We don't allow people to sell their organs -- up here, we don't even allow them to sell their blood -- because of the serious risk of exploitation and harm. Toss children into the mix, and there's some considerable need for public regulation.

[Southpaw Bookworm]

9. Sanity, what a novel concept!

Sigh.

[sandnsea]

4. Well I'm confused

Was Blimber the surrogate for Flynn? Who was supposed to be these children's parent? Why does the egg donor suddenly have rights in this instance, I thought that law had been decided. Sounds like a judge got it all screwed up.

[shavedape]

6. sperm donor father and fiancee were to get custody

the egg donor (texas) is suing for custody after the surrogate (pennsylvania) did not relinquish the children which were to go to the sperm donor father (Ohio), but instead took them home from the hospital and sued and was awarded custody in Pennsylvania.

or at least i think thats how it went.

[shavedape]

5. we need a federal law on egg sperm donors!

interstate 'trade' is exactly the type of thing that needs regulation at the federal level.

[mainegreen]

7. Lets agree to chop the children into equal pieces...

the first to give up parental rights, keeps the kids.

Or we could just say they're all stupid and chop up the parents.

This crap sickens me.

[enough]

10. kick

[NorthernSpy]

11. no part or element of the human body should ever be sold

The body and all that it consists of are never to be considered items of commerce. All this sort of thing is intolerable, and I'd dearly love to see it banned.

[iverglas]

12. so ...

you like the Canadian legislation?

;)