Judge Cites 1849 Slavery Law in Ruling Embryos Can Be Considered Property

[RandySF]

A Virginia judge relied in part on a 19th century law that defined enslaved people as property in a recent decision to allow a divorced woman to pursue using embryos that she shared with her former husband — a ruling that has drawn criticism.

The request by the woman, Honeyhline Heidemann, 45, represented an issue that had not been previously addressed by the court, Richard E. Gardiner, a Fairfax County Circuit Court judge, wrote in an opinion last month.

While previous cases asking for the division of frozen embryos have been considered within the legal context of splitting up marital property, the judge wrote in February, Ms. Heidemann was already divorced from her former husband, Jason Heidemann. So Judge Gardiner took a different approach, delving into earlier versions of Virginia’s current property law on “goods or chattels” to see whether embryos could be divided as property between people who are no longer spouses.

One version, an 1849 code, categorized “slaves” as property that could be divided and sold. The judge cited it to draw a parallel to the human embryo case, saying the code used “language almost identical” to current law.




https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/16/us/virginia-slave-laws-embryos.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

[SheltieLover]

1. Wth?

[Alexander Of Assyria]

2. Because slavery never ended in America, it put on a new mask.

No time to repeal ancient slavery related laws???…cause could come in handy in he future…and just did!

How many more such slave laws sit on the books, waiting for their resurrection??!

[Igel]

4. The law wasn't cited except to show a parallel

with current law.

What did the then law mean, with its text, under then-current precedent and interpretation? Y.

What does the current law mean, with essentially the same text, for present precedent and interpretation?

Well, similar language should yield similar construction, you'd think. Therefore, "essentially the same as Y."

Might be interesting to actually see what the language claimed to be in parallel actually says. But the 1849 law, even if repealed, would probably still have been something that could be used in this case.

[mwooldri]

3. Fascinating.

As Dr. Spock might say.

If embryos are property... Does that mean that people who have an embryo within themselves have the right to get rid of it? After all it is property, right?

A legal minefield. Citing slavery isn't a good thing in my eyes but it does add fuel IMO to the reproductive rights debate.