I Debate Texas' Frozen Embryo Case on Fox Morning Show (Video Available)
June 5th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
I debated the Texas frozen embryo case on Fox's nationally-syndicated Morning Show with Mike and Juliet on Friday, June 1. It involves Augusta Roman and her ex-husband Randy Roman--the latest man getting beat up unfairly in the media for not doing what the woman in his life wanted him to do. The case is getting widespread national media attention.
In the case, the couple had tried for several years to have a child (and had one miscarriage) before undergoing infertility treatments. The day before the embryos were to be implanted, Randy told her that he was troubled by certain aspects of their relationship and wanted to wait to implant the embryos until they had resolved their problems. They went to counseling for six months and later divorced. Augusta, who will be 47 in August, still wants to have the children, and Randy has refused.
While undergoing the infertility treatments they had both signed a form which clearly stated that in the event of divorce, the embryos would not be implanted. In February, the Texas Court of Appeal sided with Randy, and now Augusta and her attorney Rebecca Reitz are appealing the case.
On the show I debated the issue with Augusta Roman and Becky Reitz. The co-hosts, Mike Jerrick and Juliet Huddy were sympathetic to Augusta, and Juliet at one point got very angry at me. To Juliet's credit, however, she did ask good questions.
Also on the show was Fox News legal analyst Jeanine Pirro, who gave her opinion as to Augusta's chances of winning her appeal. As I had expected, Augusta and Becky had a division of labor--Becky would argue the case while Augusta would play the weepy victim and vilify her ex.
See the video below.
To learn more about the case, see the Los Angeles Times' pro-Augusta/anti-Randy news/editorial Her embryos or his? (5/30/07).
Also, as I pointed out on the show, the Texas Court of Appeal said that Augusta didn't have a leg to stand on legally--to read the Court's opinion, click here.
Augusta and Becky have also taken their case to the public via appearances on ABC's Good Morning America, NBC's Today Show and others, and those appearances many be archived on the ABC and NBC websites.
"));
19 queries. 0.344 seconds.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:27 am
This is really interesting.
I "like" her making the argument that these are already children and that Randy no longer has the option. That just echoes the feminist argument that a man's options end before intercourse.
But the feminists will decide that they cannot support Augusta's position that these are already children because of what that could do to Roe V. Wade.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Glenn,
Great job. Whatever it takes, you need to either go on these shows religiously or get your own show and present the male perspective. If it is on Spike or some other cable network---then do it. Whatever it takes or whatever forum that is open---jump on it. I can only imagine the impact if there was but one TV show for a half-hour that was focused on exclusive father's rights issues. I am allowed to hope.
June 5th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Glenn,
I second Thomas' suggestion, very strongly. I also hope they follow up and have Randy on and are fair to him. That woman interviewer, she was making me angry! Anyway, good job, Glenn.
June 5th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Here is another idea, Augusta needs to have a sit-down with women who were widowed with young children. She also needs to hear from the now-adult children who were raised by just mom because their dad died when they were young, or not even born yet. When she hears how the mom's struggled to answer the "tell me about my daddy" questions, and all the pain the kids felt at the ball park not having their daddy there, maybe she will begin to understand.
Then again, she strikes me more as the other type, the one who would poison her kids against their father in a divorce. All she said was "MY kids", not even considering that (IF they are already considered children) they are also his. I hope Randy wins, I know I am pulling for him.
Heaven forbid she wins this case, I will pray for those children. The little boy who doesn't have a daddy to look up to, to toss a ball around with. The little girl who stays home from the father-daughter dance. All the love and lessons a child of either gender would loose out on.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:48 am
"While undergoing the infertility treatments they had both signed a form which clearly stated that in the event of divorce, the embryos would not be implanted. "
Case closed.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:50 am
"They had both signed a form which clearly stated that in the event of divorce, the embryos would not be implanted. "
Case closed.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:55 am
She signed an agreement stating that the embryos will not be implanted in the event of divorce, and now she wants to back out of an agreement she signed freely and knowingly. The utter gall of this woman knows no bounds! I hope Randy wins this go around as he undoubtedly will, because of this written agreement and this is what the courts look to for guidance . If she did not agree to the deal in writing with full knowledge or somehow he deceived her into signing an agreement without reading it entirely , that is one thing, but if not and she still signed it, then it is her problem. At 47 years old, she has no business wanting to have children. If she wanted children that badly, she should have had them earlier in life and not waited so long. What gall!
June 5th, 2007 at 10:05 am
As a hypothetical, it would be interesting to see the take on the opposite:
Suppose the man wanted to take the embryos for implantation in another woman, releasing the biological mother from responsibility.
Either way, there is revealed a basic truth, that the family is defined by the mother. That is, if a man wants to opt out, he's a shameful cad. If a woman wants to opt him out, he should go along with that, otherwise he's a shameful cad.
And so it is with donation as well. The irony there is that if a man impregnates a woman by accident, he's held accountable for 21 years. That is, if we went into it with no intention of impregnating her.
On the other hand, the donor who goes into a clinic with the sole intention of leaving a sample that will be purposely used to create a new life is off the hook -- because there's a document that say's that's OK with mom.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:10 am
As always, Glenn, you're doing admirable work - you are a true soldier and hero; who knows how many men, women, children and families have benefited from your (seemingly!) tireless crusade to create and maintain a world where men are valued for their critically important role in the world.
As a coach working with women exclusively for many years now, I know that a huge tug in women's hearts as they hear this story in the media is the "plight" of this woman who has wanted children and has one final chance at her dream. This is tough. And, I am absolutely in favor of the courts holding up the agreement these two consenting adults made when they said, basically, no marriage, no implantation.
This man's rights would be violated - and would continue to be, because of course he'd probably be made to pay child support (while not being able to enjoy any of the benefits of fatherhood, if she, indeed, kept him away from the child).
I feel for her - and she is just plain in the wrong to try to force this issue.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:33 am
I don't think this would understand what these kid went through. She focused on her own selfish desire to have children irregardless of the outcome.
The worst part is (even though it's been said from the beginning that he doesn't want it to occur), if she actually won and had kids and he wanted nothing to do with it (as stated from the beginning). He would still be considered a dead beat.
Sign something that says he's not responsible for child care? Yeah right.. "Judge I signed this under duress". Then the "Well this isn't an enforceable contract because as a state we need the money so we can get more state funding. Contract is null and void".
June 5th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Yes, to hell with the contract, to hell with a child's needs, to hell with every point made above except "But I WANNA...!"
June 5th, 2007 at 11:49 am
There's a similar case from the UK, where again the woman "lost" and the law was uphold.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6530295.stm
Woman loses final embryo appeal
Ms Evans latest appeal represented her last chance
Ms Evans' reaction
A woman left infertile after cancer therapy has lost her fight to use embryos fertilised by an ex-partner.
Natallie Evans, from Trowbridge, Wilts, and Howard Johnston began IVF treatment in 2001 but he withdrew consent for the embryos to be used after they split up.
She turned to the European courts after exhausting the UK legal process.
Ms Evans, 35, said she was "distraught" after the Grand Chamber of the European Court ruling, but Mr Johnston said "common sense had prevailed".
June 5th, 2007 at 11:57 am
There was a very similar case in the UK recentlyy, except that the woman became infertile due to cancer treatment and the eggs were harvested before treatment began. The case has been to the European Court of Human Rights, but she has lost at each stage. Half the problem is that people often substitute emotion for thought. Yes, I feel sorry for the woman (who wouldn't feel sorry for someone made infertile by cancer?), but in no other area would anyone contend that a legal contract should be varied after the event, because one of the parties feels that they don't like its terms. Also, particularly in the UK case, the man was under immense pressure to agree to fertilise the embryos due to the distressing circumstances. Is it right not to give someone a chance to have second thoughts in such a situation?
June 5th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
One point that differentiates this case from the case where a man gets a woman pregnant in a 2conventional2 manner. If a couple split up and a man meets another partner with whom he wants a family, if the embryos can be implanted without his consent and he can be liable for child support, he doesn't know the possible extent of his future financial commitments when he makes a decision about a family with new partner. It cannot be right that a man can have an open-ended finanial commitment of this nature.
June 5th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Surprised no one thought of this angle. Suppose HE won the embryos, later implanted them in his new wife, and then sued HER for child support.
Nahh, sorry, went off into equality fiction channel for a minute.
June 6th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Pro-choice my ass!
Women are given complete and free choice on whether to bring a child into the world, and they should be.
This guy on the other hand, his choice is voided when his ex wants to sacrifice the happiness of the child for her selfishness.
The women arguing on her side just assume that because she's a woman she deserves the choice while he doesn't. The written contract that they ahd with the embryo storage company is null and void is the woman wants to make a stupid decision.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:18 am
I can see both sides of this arguement. I would have to say that it is easy to tell a person that they should just adopt, I mean I have my own biological child and I don't know would have wanted to adopt if I could not concieve on my own. It is not an issue for though so I really can't say what other people in that situation should do. On the other hand I can also see where he does not want the children. He would be released from any responsibility to them but I know for him it is not about the money. For him it seems to be about having children and not being able to be there for them. As for the topic of being a child of a single parent, I am child of a single parent. It was not so hard on me at school. I went to a mostly black school district so there were no parental activities at school because a good portion of the students were from single parent homes. My case may be special though given the area that I am from. I am from an area where 20 year old men have 6 or 7 children by all different women and I am using both those terms loosely. After thinking about it while typing though I don't think she should try to have them but that does not mean she should adopt either. I don't think any of us are in a place to tell anybody how they should have children. Here is a good question, wouldn't the adopted child also have a single parent?
June 6th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
[...] Randy has refused, leading to a high-profile court battle. To watch a video of our debate, click here. During our debate, Augusta Roman and her attorney Becky Reitz insisted that Randy Roman would not [...]
June 9th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
juststoppingin, I think I understand what you are trying to say. It is said that people who are born blind do not know any different and it does not bother them that they can not see the people they love, the sights around them, and so on. However, never having been blind myself (thank God) I do know what it means to be able to look upon my child and if I ever lost that ability...........well, I don't know how that would effect me but just the thought of it seriously bothers me. The same could be said for this, having had both my parents growing up, and knowing what it was like to spend time with both, it can physically hurt to think of what it would have been like without one or both. But that is only because I know what I would have missed.
The bottom line is it is not fair to force anyone into parenthood and it is not fair to put an innocent child in this situation. As for the single parent-adopted child question you asked, that would depend on the child's situation. It could very well be a step up for that child. My sister-in-law and her husband adopted a “cocaine baby” (newborn) many years ago; he is a young adult now. Even a single, stable parent would have been a step up for him, but having two loving, stable parents was a major bonus for him. Oh! And a big brother! He doesn't realize it because he was just born when they got him, but he hit the preverbal lottery.
June 11th, 2007 at 11:28 am
The argument that she could sign away her rights to child support is null and void. Can't be done! She would be signing away the SATE'S
June 11th, 2007 at 11:41 am
The argument that she could sign away her rights to child support is null and void. Can't be done! She would be signing away the SATE'S right to collect both the support plus the 60% of Social Security tribute and any other penalties and interest they could steal! People who make such an argument do not understand that child support does not go to, or for, the child. The big winners iin this case, as in all others under Family Law, are the shysters! Win or lose, Randy is out a bundle of money. And that's what it is all about with this corrupt system. They don't give a damn about the children, families, fathers, or even mothers.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
[...] 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 [...]
August 26th, 2007 at 12:41 am
[...] My debate with Augusta Roman and her attorney on Fox's nationally-syndicated Morning Show with Mike and Juliet (pictured)--to watch the video, click here. [...]
November 1st, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Just came here from part II to watch the vid...WOW
I am very confused on how only women have the right to say it is not your right or business to say...
Furthermore Glenn when you said she chose not to have a child, Juliet then agreed by affirming, "You could say the same about me" Aggravating it was to see her preceded that statement by inflammatory words like "now hold on buddy!"
"Hasn't happened for me yet” implied the point you were trying to make by saying it was not an act of God that prevented this..." In addition, she said no less that three times it is not a choice and made some kind of non-point of being and event... but after this, she said, "IT'S MY CHOICE!" I thought you said that in the first place, she affirmed it then argued with you that it is not a choice then went on to tell you it is a choice...
I am... very,. . . very. . . confused????????????
April 9th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
[...] To learn more about the case, watch my debate with Augusta Roman and her attorney on Fox's nationally-syndicated Morning Show with Mike and Juliet (pictured) by clicking here. [...]