Court rules divorced woman can use fertilized embryos against father’s wishes
A divorced woman is entitled to implant some fertilized embryos created before she was married despite the objections of her former husband, the state Court of Appeals has ruled.
“A woman is entitled”…
Let’s keep going on.
In a split decision, the majority acknowledged that the contract Ruby Torres and John Terrell signed with the clinic doing the in-vitro fertilization spells out in the event of separation of divorce the embryos could be used solely with the “express, written consent” of both parties.
Now, Torres who was undergoing chemotherapy at the time, wants to implant the embryos if and when she remarries. Terrell, who does not consent, got a trial judge to rule that she can’t do that.
There’s a contract signed by both parties.
A contract is (is supposed to be) “LAW AMONG THE PARTIES”
The man do NOT consent.
But appellate Judge Jennifer Campbell, writing for the majority, said that, on balancing the interests of both parties, Torres is entitled to do with the eggs what she wants. And Campbell said it is irrelevant that if Torres gets the embryos, Terrell could be legally responsible for child support.
Wow, just wow…
What makes the case particularly noteworthy is that Torres got the Arizona Legislature last year to approve a new law saying that judges must grant viable embryos to whichever parent will agree to allow them to be born, regardless of what a couple decided when first having an embryo frozen.
That means Arizona law now reads a man’s decision he no longer wants to be a parent could be overridden if his ex-wife wants to become a mother.
But what it also means is that a woman could wind up having no say as her former husband gives the frozen embryos to a new spouse who would give birth to a child who is biologically related to her.
Wow, the law was modified to better suit women’s needs.
That law, however, was not a factor in Friday’s ruling, with the court saying they can’t be bound by a statute that didn’t exist at the time.
Then, how the judge could do that?
Campbell acknowledged that contract requires the “express, written consent of both parties” before embryos can be used to create a pregnancy. But she said that is overridden by the other provision which allows a trial judge to decide the fate of the embryos.
So, it’s basically:
“The law has been modified to better suit women’s needs, but it doesn’t apply in such case, because timing. However since she have a vagina she’s right, no matter what the law says”.
Also worth noticing that Arizona
Have a Republican governor
And a Republican majority
Still, gynocentric laws keep fluorishing, and when the law isn’t enough to make a woman happy, then a female judge is going to bypass the law…
Men’s consent does NO matter.
Laws does NO matter.
Signed contracts does no matter.
Tagged “Consent is a joke”, Discrimination, Gynocentrism, Misandry, and “Women Law”.