New Column: Texas Frozen Embryo Case–In Defense of a Man’s Right to Choose
My new co-authored column, Texas Frozen Embryo case–In Defense of a Man’s Right to Choose (Houston Chronicle, 6/14/07, Baltimore Sun, 6/17/07), takes Randy Roman’s side in the controversy which was reported in several hundred media outlets last week.
(Some of you may recall that I debated the would-be mother and her attorney on Fox’s nationally-syndicated Morning Show with Mike and Juliet on Friday, June 1–to watch the video of our debate, click here. I’ve also debated the case on the radio several times–to listen, click here and here.)
To write a Letter to the Editor of the Houston Chronicle regarding In defense of man’s right to choose in embryo case, click here. To write a Letter to the Editor of the Baltimore Sun regarding Father’s Day, Dad Dilemma: Men, too, Should Have the Right to Choose, click here.
I co-authored the column, which appears below, with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.
Texas Frozen Embryo case–In Defense of a Man’s Right to Choose
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
Houston Chronicle, 6/14/07
The Texas Supreme Court is currently considering the legal briefs in the highly publicized Roman v. Roman frozen embryo case, in which Augusta Roman seeks to implant the embryos created during her six-year marriage to Randy Roman. Randy Roman is trying to prevent this, and won a unanimous decision in the Texas First District Court of Appeal in February. Because this is a new, cutting-edge area of the law, and one which has received little judicial attention in Texas, it appears likely that the Texas Supreme Court will hear the case.
Though Augusta Roman says she will raise the child as if she had used an anonymous sperm donor, she still should not be allowed to force Randy Roman to create a fatherless child. Randy’s position — that he wanted to have a child with Augusta while they were married but not after they were divorced — is understandable. In recent TV interviews, Augusta has made it clear that she loathes her ex-husband. What man would want to bring a child into such a contentious situation? The child will grow up despising Randy for disavowing and abandoning him.
Augusta’s desire to have the embryos implanted also breaks a contractual commitment. The Court of Appeal explained:
“The [embryo] agreement specifically states, ‘If we are divorced or either of us files for divorce while any of our frozen embryos are still in the program, we hereby authorize and direct, jointly and individually, that the frozen embryo(s) shall be … Discarded.’ Although the parties could have chosen to release the frozen embryos either to Randy or Augusta, they chose the option to discard the frozen embryos in the event of divorce. The embryo agreement’s language could not be clearer.”
The Court of Appeal also held that, in fertility cases, it is best that the parties themselves decide what will happen in case of divorce or other circumstances, and that they put their intentions in writing. To discard the Romans’ contractual agreement simply because it is now undesirable to Augusta is bad public policy.
Augusta and her attorney, Becky Reitz, insist that the Texas sperm donor law protects Randy from any child-support obligations. This assertion is very questionable. (more…)
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
June 19th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
After watching the video for the 1st time, I think you did really great Glenn.
The only part where you lost steam (and I probably would have too) is when the co-host Juliet was talking about you not having the right to pry into her life about delaying the choice to have kids.
Hindsight is always 20/20 but a good thing to reply would be :”You know what? I agree it is none of my business. But the fact that Augusta’s biological clock is ticking does not give her the right to single-handedly INFLICT fatherhood upon her ex-husband. This would be tantamount to a man being able to direct doctors to NOT perform an abortion on his wife against her will.”