Laws on ‘Owning’ Embryos Explained as Khloe Kardashian Admits Ex Has No Say
"The Kardashians" star said her daughter True, whom she shares with Tristan Thompson, had named the frozen embryo.
Khloé Kardashian asserted on The Kardashians that she "owns" a frozen embryo and would not need to inform ex-partner Tristan Thompson if she chose to use it. This has sparked debate about who controls frozen embryos after in vitro fertilization (IVF). U.S. law does not specify a single rule for embryo control; rather, it is determined by written disposition agreements, state law, and sometimes court rulings.
Family-building law firm Foster + Bloom explains that such agreements can address various scenarios, including separation, divorce, death, or incapacitation. In 2015, an Illinois appellate court ruled in favor of a woman who wanted to use embryos from a previous relationship after finding an oral agreement allowed her to do so. Kardashian discussed the embryo with her mother, Kris Jenner, and her daughter True, who named it "Tyla."
Kardashian stated that she "owns" the embryo outright and did not need to tell Thompson, who she shares a child with. Anti-abortion group Live Action criticized Kardashian's comments, alleging they illustrated the "commodification of children" in IVF. However, the legal issue of "owning" a frozen embryo is more nuanced and involves reproductive rights, contracts, and state-specific laws.
The precise agreement between Kardashian and Thompson, if any, is crucial in determining her unilateral authority. When two people create embryos together and later have conflicting desires, courts may consider factors like original intentions, biological relationships, ability to achieve parenthood differently, and competing reasons for preserving embryos.
A famous case involved Karla Dunston, who had lymphoma and created embryos before chemotherapy threatened her fertility. Her ex-boyfriend objected to using the embryos, arguing it would violate his right not to procreate. Although they had an oral agreement, the court ruled in Dunston's favor, as the agreement was not written. This illustrates why "ownership" can be misleading, as courts may examine earlier agreements and circumstances rather than simply deciding who possesses the embryos.
Some states, like Arizona, have statutes that override prior agreements, awarding embryos to the spouse who wants them to develop to birth. Ultimately, the legally important questions for those with frozen embryos involve the initial agreements, subsequent agreements, and applicable state law.
Written by urgent.news from Newsweek's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
