House passes mandate on disputes over embryos

[TexasTowelie]

Saying frozen embryos are just another piece of property, state lawmakers on Thursday claimed for themselves the right to tell judges what should happen to them when couples get divorced.

The measure approved on a 33-25 party line vote by the Republican-controlled House spells out that any dispute between soon-to-be-former spouses about the embryos must be resolved by giving them to whichever person promises to actually allow them to be born. SB 1393 would overrule any contract that the couple had signed about what happens to them when they first decided to have the embryos frozen.

What that means is a man’s desire to no longer be a parent could be overridden if his wife wants to become a mother.

But what it also means is that a woman could wind up having no say as her former husband gives the frozen embryos to a new spouse who would give birth to — and raise — the child who is biologically related to her.

Read more: https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2018/03/28/house-passes-mandate-on-disputes-over-embryos/

[Control-Z]

1. What is wrong with people? eom

[patricia92243]

2. "Promises?" I'm sure they would keep their word (sarcasm,) Probably flush them down the

toilet.

[Freddie]

3. Would the party that no longer wanted to be a parent

Have to pay child support? Thinking of the Sofia Vergara case where her ex wanted their frozen embryos born (despite the contact they had) so he could collect her $$. He lost in court.