![]() |
|
|||||||
| Law News Breaking law news and events. |
![]() |
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
News
Last Online:
Jul 16th, 2008 11:37 AM Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog
Posts: 640
|
![]() On Friday, we addressed the problems associated with a judge ordering a woman, as a condition of probation, to abstain from having children. In another case that implicates reproductive law, Iris Kievernagel has been told by an appellate court in California that she can’t use her deceased husband’s frozen sperm to inseminate herself. Here’s the story from the San Fran Chron, and here’s the opinion. Citing precedent for the proposition that the “the right of procreational autonomy is composed of two rights of equal significance–the right to procreate and the right to avoid procreation,” the court writes: In this case we must decide whether a widow has the right to use her late husband’s frozen sperm to attempt to conceive a child where her late husband signed an agreement with the company storing the frozen sperm providing that the frozen sperm was to be discarded upon his death. We conclude that in determining the disposition of gamete material, to which no other party has contributed and thus another party’s right to procreational autonomy is not implicated, the intent of the donor must control.According to the court, Joseph Kievernagel, a Sacramento County sheriff who died in a 2005 helicopter crash, wished not to father a child after death. The new ruling “provides some much-needed guidance in an area where reproductive technology has clearly outstripped the legal system,” said Jay-Allen Eisen, lawyer for the husband’s parents, who opposed the widow’s request. Suzanne Alves, a lawyer for Iris Kievernagel, said the court failed to address “the near-impossibility of determining someone’s intent when they pass away” and leave no will. She said her client would consider an appeal to the state Supreme Court. Interestingly, the court said the situation would be different, the court said, if the dispute involved frozen embryos - fertilized eggs - which would require that both spouses’ wishes be considered. Photo: iStockPhoto Last edited by top_admin : Sep 15th, 2008 at 12:35 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Joe and Iris both signed the document. Iris knew my brothers wishes before his death. Iris is currently remmarried and is expecting a new baby with her new husband. So why does she still want my brothers dead sperm. It isnt for sentimental reasons, try money.
My brothers good name is being dragged through courts and newspapers because of a very selfish woman. |
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Time Limits On Molestation In California? | BYoung | Miscellaneous Topics | 2 | Mar 29th, 2008 03:39 PM |
| sperm donor contracts - UT / WY | petcrows | Child Custody & Support | 4 | Jul 1st, 2007 07:24 PM |
| Supreme Court Limits Discrimination Suits | Unregistered | Hiring, Firing, Wrongful Termination | 2 | May 29th, 2007 03:52 PM |
| Sperm from a dead soldier gives life, court rules | Unregistered | Other Family Law Matters | 0 | Jan 30th, 2007 12:50 AM |
| sperm donor and child support | Unregistered | Divorce, Separation, Annulment | 0 | Sep 30th, 2006 08:16 AM |