Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
New Jersey Bars Man From Using Ex-Wife's Frozen Embryos
Aired August 14, 2001 - 14:01 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled in an unusual custody case, barring a man from having his ex- wife's fertilized eggs implanted in another woman. The justices say that would make the ex-wife a parent against her will. But the man is allowed to keep the seven embryos frozen in storage, if he wants.
CNN's Maria Hinojosa has more details now from New York -- hi, Maria.
MARIA HINOJOSA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Kyra.
Well, when two people who can't have children decide they want to try in vitro fertilization, often the last thing the couple is thinking about is a divorce. In this case, a couple from New Jersey gets married and they realize they are having a hard time conceiving a child. They turn to in vitro fertilization and 11 frozen embryos are created.
The couple has a child, but then gets divorced. And the question then becomes: What happens to the leftover frozen embryos -- in this case, seven of them? The ex-husband wants the embryos preserved or perhaps donated to his infertile sister or another infertile couple. The mother or ex-wife, though, wants the frozen embryos to never to be used in another pregnancy.
Today, the state Supreme Court of New Jersey sided with the mother because she is the one who is infertile. The ex-husband can have other children if he wants. Regarding the anonymous former couple, the court wrote -- it said: "Because M.B. is a father and is capable of having other children, his right to procreate is not lost if he is denied the opportunity to use or donate the pre-embryos, whereas if the pre-embryos are successfully implanted, J.B." -- or the mother -- "will be forced to become a biological parent.
"On balance," the court wrote, "the fundamental rights of" the mother or ex-wife "not to procreate outweighs the father's right to procreate."
Now, earlier today, CNN spoke to the attorney representing the ex-wife, who lauded the court's decision.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES KATZ, ATTORNEY FOR EX-WIFE: We're thrilled. The court reaffirmed everything we said, which is that parenthood should be a matter of choice, not coercion, and that the act of bringing a child into the world is an act of love and should not be something bartered in the marketplace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GUTIERREZ: Now, this case in New Jersey brings to four nationwide with similar circumstances: in Tennessee in 1992; New York in 1998; Massachusetts last year; and now in New Jersey.
And in all four cases, the courts have sided with whichever parents wants the frozen embryos not to be used. It has not mattered whether it is a mother or a father who is requesting that the embryos be destroyed. At least in this case in New Jersey, the court sided with the mother because she is the one who is infertile. And were the frozen embryos to ever be used again, she would essentially have been forced to become a biological mother, since these were her eggs, even though she had no intention of having more children -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: Maria Hinojosa, thanks so much -- Natalie.
NATALIE ALLEN, CNN ANCHOR: Eric Spevak is the ex-husband's attorney. He joins us now live from Miami to talk about this decision.
Mr. Spevak, thank you for joining us.
What's your client's reaction -- the ex-husband's reaction to this outcome?
ERIC SPEVAK, ATTORNEY FOR EX-HUSBAND: Well, we've been trying to get ahold of our client, but I can tell you that we discussed this issue many times. And he feels that there is a ray of hope here, because, in the decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court, it gives him the opportunity -- and other people the opportunity -- in the event there is a valid contract, to determine whether or not that contract can be enforced.
So the New Jersey Supreme Court gave us a ray of hope here that, in the event that there is a binding contract, that that contract can be enforced, if no one changes their mind, at the very end. So we are pleased with that part of the result. But, unfortunately, what needs to happen on a national level is that a debate about: What are frozen embryos? What is their legal status? Are they property? Are they persons? Are they life?
And I think that issue must be brought up and decided by some court in order to make the debate a viable debate in our country.
ALLEN: So your client, he can try and keep these embryos in this clinic, correct? They won't necessarily be destroyed.
SPEVAK: That's correct. And we're very pleased with that part of the decision, because it gives him the right to basically not have them destroyed at his option so long as he pays for the cost of caring them. So we're happy with that result. ALLEN: We heard the lawyer for the ex-wife say that parenthood should be a matter of choice, not coercion. You have, as Maria Hinojosa mentioned in her story there, other courts who have said that they have sided with the parent who doesn't want embryos to be used.
What argument did you make before these judges to try to convince them otherwise?
SPEVAK: Well, obviously that's their best argument. However, we believe that that issue has to be brought to the highest court. And that's one of the reasons we're discussing this with our client. But we believe that the decision was made once they went into the IVF treatment program.
And once they decided to go through with that, at that point their choice was made.
ALLEN: So what's your next step here?
SPEVAK: My next step is to get ahold of my client, have a meeting with my client and discuss our options. This is on the cutting edge of the law, technology and the law. And the law needs to keep up with technology. And we will certainly discuss all issues on this very important issue for the country.
ALLEN: It's certainly an emotional one, no doubt, for both the woman and the man who are no longer married in this case. What has the emotional toll been like for the man you represent in this case?
SPEVAK: It's been very emotional for my client. He's -- it's been one of the issues in his divorce case. He is now divorced.
And at this point, that issue has divided the parties. And that was one of the reasons that they were divorced. However, it's an issue that will continually be discussed because they do have a child naturally together.
ALLEN: Eric Spevak, we thank you for joining us.
SPEVAK: Thank you for having me.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
