ACLJ Takes On Case To Prevent Mother From Being Forced To Constructively Abort Her Unborn Children

In a case that strikes at the heart of pro-life values, our legal team is vigorously defending a mother’s right not to be forced to constructively abort her unborn children and to instead protect her cryogenically preserved embryos from destruction. This case exemplifies the critical intersection of parental rights, contractual obligations, and the fundamental right to life that the ACLJ has long championed.

A Mother’s Plea To Protect Her Children

Before a court in Nevada lies an urgent plea from a mother seeking to protect her two frozen embryos. To this mother, these embryos are not mere “property” to be divided in divorce proceedings – they are her children, created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) during her marriage. Now, as her divorce has been finalized, her former spouse seeks to destroy these embryos against her wishes and in direct violation of their prior agreements.

This mother views these embryos not as potential children, but as her living children who are in the earliest stages of development. She has consistently maintained this belief throughout her marriage, during separation, and now during divorce proceedings. Should her previously agreed upon custody rights be confirmed by the court, she intends to bring them to term through pregnancy and raise them as part of her family.

The Legal Foundation: Clear Contractual Agreements

What makes this case particularly compelling is the existence of multiple written agreements clearly designating the mother as the custodian of any embryos in the event of divorce. When the couple underwent IVF treatment some years back, they specifically selected “Custody” (rather than “Donate” or “Discard”) and wrote the mother’s full name in the corresponding space, indicating their mutual agreement that she would take sole custody of any embryos should they divorce.

This clear directive cannot be ignored. Throughout multiple agreements executed over the years – even after the relationship had deteriorated – the couple consistently chose options that preserved the embryos rather than destroying them. They then sought to preserve the life of every embryo that had been created.

A Father’s Abandonment and a Mother’s Dedication

Despite now demanding the destruction of these embryos, the father has shown little interest in them for years. He has never contributed financially to their storage and maintenance. The mother has personally paid all storage fees and has been the only party to demonstrate ongoing concern for these embryos.

On top of the clear contractual agreements, this pattern of behavior constitutes abandonment under Nevada law. The father’s complete lack of interest or support for these embryos until seeking their destruction speaks volumes. In contrast, the mother considers these embryos to be her children and wishes to bring them to term to be raised as part of her family. Rather than destruction, she offers life and love.

Standing Firm for Life

While the contractual arguments alone should decide this case, we must not lose sight of the fundamental truth: To this mother, these embryos are human lives deserving of protection. They are not mere property to be disposed of at will. Humans possess inherent dignity and worth from the moment of conception. This case is not just another divorce, but instead, it is a case about the right of a mother not to be forced to abort her child.

The mother in this case recognizes her embryo-children as exactly that – children. They are entitled to constitutional protection under the 13th and 14th Amendments. This case represents exactly what we at ACLJ have always fought for: the protection of human life at all stages of development and the defense of families who wish to nurture that life. It would not make sense to allow viable human embryos to be destroyed when their loving mother stands ready to bring them to term and care for them.

We are urging the court to honor the agreements these parties made when their intentions were clear and unclouded by divorce proceedings. It should recognize the mother’s consistent devotion to these embryos while the father showed no interest for years. Most importantly, it should acknowledge that the destruction of human life cannot be the default position when a willing and able parent exists who wishes to protect that life.

We have just filed a brief in this case in Nevada state court, outlining the law and the facts and calling on the court to protect the mother’s right to care for her unborn children. This woman has made a choice, and it is life.

This case represents much more than a dispute between former spouses – it’s about recognizing and protecting human life at its earliest stages, and there’s a court involved. The ACLJ has long fought to defend life from conception, and this case presents an opportunity to advance that fundamental principle in the courts. We will continue to stand with this mother and all parents who fight to protect their children – born and unborn. The sanctity of human life demands nothing less.