Family Research Council Convoluted Assessment of Embryo Ruling in Europe

Every once in a while you come across some statement where to read it and you say to yourself "How the hell did they reach that conclusion?" In a March 7, 2006 email to its supporters, the Family Research Council (FRC) makes the following statement:

A Woman's Right to Choose?

Chalk up another victory for "choice." But this ruling, from the European Court of Human Rights meeting in Strasbourg, France, has observers scratching their heads. Natalie Evans of Great Britain appealed to the court for permission to implant one of the six embryos she and Howard Johnston conceived in vitro in 2001. Evans and Johnston have since split up. She wanted to implant an embryo so she could bear a child. But Johnston said no. Johnston was happy when the court ruled in his favor and against Miss Evans: "The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when, and if, I would start a family." Some of us thought he did that when he and his then-mistress brought forth new human lives. So, in this landmark case on human rights, we see the woman has no right to carry the children she conceived, the embryonic children have no right to life, and the father can decide whether or not anyone else in the relationship has any rights at all. Now, what if Miss Evans had won the right to implant but had then decided to have an abortion? Does anyone think the court would have supported Mr. Johnston if he wanted his unborn children to live? Such is the absurdity of the current state of human rights in Europe is employed, all the more reason Americans should be concerned about the U.S. Courts referencing European law.

Let's review what the FRC says. A couple is married in the U.K. and for whatever reason they have some embryos fertilized and stored. The couple splits up and later the ex-wife decides she wants a baby and gets the tubes out of storage and wants to have them implanted. The ex-husband disapproves and goes to court to stop the implantation and the court sides with him. The FRC says the man create the baby before and shouldn't get to stop the ex-wife from using their embryos to conceive their child even though they aren't married. For this, the FRC says, we can blame those dumb courts in Europe (actually it's only the U.K.) and we should all be fearful of our courts referencing European courts.

Here's the actual issue. A married couple decides, that due to a cancer diagnosis of the wife that required removal of her ovaries, that six embryos get fertilized and stored. The wife requested at the time that some of the embryos be fertizied anonymously in case their marriage ended. The husband said that wouldn't happen and they had six embryos fertilized and stored. The marriage ended six months later and the now ex-husband removed his consent to allow the embryos to be implanted, meaning the ex-wife can have no genetically-related children. The clinic that stores the embryos wants to destroy them, so the ex-wife went to court to have that stopped so she could argue for having them implanted.

Read the Court's ruling press release.

Read the Court's hearing announcement.

This is a very sad case it just pains me that the FRC paints this as a "choice" and court issue, but it has zero to do with "choice" as typically used in the context we Americans discuss it. "Choice" in America has to do with terminating a pregnancy in the womb. That isn't this case at all. It's about a mother wanting a baby with her genes in it and an ex-husband who apparently isn't interested in working something out to give his consent to using the embryos. I have people in my life with cancer and I have to say that I feel for Ms. Evans. If I were the ex-husband, I'd be willing to work something out. But for the FRC to paint this as a "choice" and "courts" issue is simply disingenuous and dishonest.

This case has more to do with an ex-husband (somewhat selfishly) denying his ex-wife to her own embryos to conceive their child. My guess is he doesn't want a legal obligation on his part to pay for the child's rearing, which is the selfish part. But again, why not work out an agreement to address whatever concerns he has and allow the poor woman to have her baby? I don't get that.

On the other hand, the FRC would be all over the ex-husband if he decided not to cover his share of the costs for raising the child. The FRC says nothing about their usual morality argument of an unwed mother having a child out of wedlock. They say nothing about their normal morality argument of a child not living in a loving mother/father family environment. That's the disingenuous part of their argument and that just annoys me no end.

This is simply another case of the FRC using a sad situation to feather their own nest by using false arguments to further their cause. Sorry, but that is simply wrong.