Reproductive Health: Massachusetts Court Holds Contracts Forcing Parenthood Violate Public Policy

The court defined “pre-embryo” as the four-to-eight cell stage of a developing fertilized egg. Other courts have used the terms “embryo” and “pre-zygote.” These terms are legally indistinguishable.

The court used initials to protect the anonymity of the ex-husband and ex-wife.

See Dehmel J.M. “To Have or Not to Have: Whose Procreative Rights Prevail in Disputes over Dispositions of Frozen Embryos?” Connecticut Law Review 27 (1995) 1377–1405, and Coleman C. , “Procreative Liberty and Contemporaneous Choice: An Inalienable Rights Approach to Frozen Embryo Disputes,” Minnesota Law Review 84 (1999) at 55.

A.Z., 431 Mass. at 156. The court did not need to reach beyond contractual grounds to decide this case. That the court chose to decide the case more broadly suggests its readiness to weigh in on the pre-embryo debate. The court chose to not defer to the 5-prong test, writing a much broader decision instead. However, it is likely that later courts will examine the 5 prongs set forth in this case as a starting point for evaluating this class of contracts.

Id. at 157

See Walter P. , “His, Hers, or Theirs—Custody, Control, and Contracts: Allocating Decisional Authority over Frozen Embryos,” Seton Hall Law Review 29 (1999) 937–969.

See Coleman , supra note 3.

See Id.

Kass , 696 N.E.2d. at 182.

Davis , 842 S.W.2d at 598.

See Coleman , supra note 3.

See Dehmel , supra note 3.

See Id.

Davis , 842 S.W.2d at 597.

See Dehmel , supra note 3.

Davis , 842 S.W.2d at 603.

See Coleman , supra note 3

A.Z., 431 Mass. at 158

Davis , 842 S.W.2d at 606