A San Francisco judge ruled on Wednesday that a woman was not entitled to frozen embryos conceived with her now ex-husband in a widely-watched case over reproductive rights in the nation’s most populous state.
Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo made the ruling in the case between Mimi Lee and Stephen Findley, upholding a consent agreement the couple had signed which required the embryos be “thawed and discarded” in the event of a divorce.
“It is a disturbing consequence of modern biological technology that the fate of the nascent human life, which the Embryos in this case represent, must be determined in a court by reference to cold legal principles,” Massullo said in her 83-page decision.
She added however that “there must be rules to govern the disposition” of frozen embryos.
Attorneys for Lee said in a statement that she was “disappointed with the Court’s tentative ruling and is evaluating her legal options.”
Lawyers for Findley could not be immediately reached for comment on Wednesday.
Just days before the pair got married in August 2010, Lee was diagnosed with breast cancer, according to court records. The couple decided to create several embryos and have them cryogenically frozen to ensure they could still have children.
The five embryos were created at the University of California, San Francisco’s (UCSF) Center for Reproductive Health and the pair signed a consent form that said they would be discarded in the event of a divorce, the ruling said.
Findley filed for divorce from Lee in December 2013 and the issue of what to do with the embryos became a flashpoint.
Lee argued during a five-day trial this summer that the embryos should be granted to her, saying she was now infertile and would have no other opportunities to bear children.
She said the consent form was invalid, and urged the court to consider her constitutional rights to procreate, according to the ruling.
Findley, meanwhile, said he had constitutional rights not to procreate with Lee, and said that she would attempt to use the resulting offspring to take advantage of him financially.
The ruling, which directs UCSF to discard the embryos, would be stayed pending any appeals.
(Reporting by Curtis Skinner and Dan Levine in San Francisco; Editing by Daniel Wallis and Diane Craft)
Lindsey Graham completely loses it in Fox News interview — and demands Joe Biden testify
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who voted against having witnesses in the impeachment trial, now is demanding at least one witness in the impeachment trial: former Vice President Joe Biden.
In an interview with top adviser to President Donald Trump, Sean Hannity, Graham said he was ready to leave the United States if Biden isn't investigated.
"We're not going to live in that country!" Graham proclaimed.
As a point of fact, the Justice Department has had information on the Bidens for over a year, but has never opened an investigation into it.
Graham went on to say that the fact that Trump wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation was just "good government." In the United States, however, we don't ask other countries to do our investigations. Similarly, Trump never actually wanted an investigation, just the announcement of one.
Legal analyst rips senators for ‘getting the vapers’ and using Schiff ‘being mean’ as an excuse to vote against witnesses
Senators are already trying to come up with an excuse not to support calling witnesses for the impeachment trial and CNN legal analyst Jeff Toobin thinks they found it.
According to CNN's Manu Raju, Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), John Barrasso (R-WY), Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Jim Risch (R-ID) freaked out about a CBS News report cited by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) that a Trump confidant said if the Republicans vote against Trump their "head will be in a pike."
Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst wants to see the ‘mountains of evidence’ that she voted against seeing
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) complained that she wanted to see the evidence that Democrats have said is available to prove President Donald Trump is guilty of the two articles of impeachment he's charged with.
The problem, however, is that Ernst voted against hearing that evidence, hearing witnesses, allowing the House's evidence to be brought into the trial and a slew of other options she had to get the information she wanted.
"I'm waiting to hear that 'mountain of overwhelming evidence,'... I just can't wait to hear it. Basically... everything we've heard has been over and over and over again," she said.