A trial is currently underway in Virginia to address the complex legal question of whether frozen embryos should be considered as property that can be divided and assigned a monetary value. The case involves a divorced couple who are in disagreement over the fate of two embryos created during their marriage.
The ex-wife, who is seeking to use the embryos for a chance at conceiving a biological child after cancer treatment rendered her infertile, is pitted against her ex-husband, who opposes becoming a biological father to another child.
The case has garnered national attention, particularly after a previous ruling by a different judge that likened embryos to 'goods or chattel' that could be divided under state law, drawing on a 19th-century law related to the treatment of slaves. However, the judge who made that ruling is no longer involved in the case.
Reproductive rights activists have also expressed concerns following a recent ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court that classified embryos as children under state law, adding to the complexity of the legal landscape surrounding reproductive rights.
With limited case law in Virginia governing the treatment of embryos, the current lawsuit is being brought under a partition statute that typically deals with the division of property between interested parties. The ex-husband's lawyer argues that this law is not suited to handle the unique nature of embryos, emphasizing the need for courts to balance competing interests and consider individuals' right to procreational autonomy.
The ex-wife's attorney, on the other hand, contends that the partition statute could apply if the embryos are classified as property and assigned a monetary value. Documents signed by both parties with the IVF provider refer to the embryos as property, suggesting that their value could be assessed based on the cost of their creation.
While the judge expressed reservations about assigning a monetary value to the embryos, he acknowledged the novel issues presented by the case. The attorneys for both parties highlighted the unique circumstances of the dispute, including language in the divorce settlement requiring the embryos to remain in storage until a court order is issued.
Ultimately, the judge will issue a ruling at a later date, with the understanding that the decision will be specific to the Heidemanns' case and may not set a broad legal precedent.
