The case involved a Virginia slave-era law that refers to people as 'goods or chattel'
of ConsumerAffairsKey Takeaways
- AVirginia judge ruled that frozen embryos are not propertyand cannot be divided like goods.
- The decisionoverturns an earlier controversial rulingthat referenced19th-century slave law.
- The case highlights agrowing national debateover the legal status of embryos and fetal personhood.
Virginia judge rules
AVirginia judge has ruled that frozen embryos cannot be considered propertythat can be divided in legal disputes, rejecting an earlier court analysis that suggested they could be treated as"goods or chattel"under outdated laws.
The ruling was issued byFairfax Circuit Court Judge Donta L. Bugg, who dismissed a lawsuit byHoneyhline Heidemann, a cancer survivor who sought access to two embryos she and herex-husband, Jason Heidemann, had frozen during a2015 in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle. The couple agreed to leave the embryos in storage during their2018 divorce, but the legal battle began whenHoneyhline sued for ownership.
A case with national implications
The dispute drew national attention in2023whenJudge Richard E. Gardiner, then presiding over the case, referencedslave-era lawswhen considering whether Virginia's property division statutes applied to embryos. Judge Bugg, in hisMarch 7 ruling, strongly rejected that reasoning, stating thatembryos should not be subject to partition or saleunder modern legal standards.
Virginia lawmakers have since 1865 removed references to slavery toexcise a lawless blightfrom the Virginia Code, Bugg wrote in his decision.
The ruling also comes at a time ofincreasing legal debateover fetal personhood. In2024, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are people, sparking legal and political battles overIVF rights and reproductive healthcare. That same year,U.S. Senate Republicans blocked a bill that sought to federally protect IVF access, deepening the nationwide controversy.
Arguments from both sides
During the trial,Honeyhline Heidemann testified that the embryos were her last chanceto conceive another biological child after undergoingcancer treatment. She hoped the judge wouldgrant her full accessto them, but was also willing to accept a ruling thatdivided the embryos between her and her ex-husband.
Jason Heidemannopposed her claim, arguing that heshould not be forced into biological parenthoodagainst his will. His legal team contended thatno law supported the idea of treating embryos as divisible propertyand pointed to ethical concerns about thesale or valuation of fertilized eggs.
The judges final decision
In his ruling, Judge Buggdismissed the case, stating there wasno precedent or legal basisfor treating embryos as property. He also questioned thepracticality and ethicsof assigning value to embryos in legal disputes.
It is obvious that these two human embryos, if implanted and carried to term, would not result in the same two people, Bugg wrote. In fact, the embryos are as unique as any two people that may be selected from the population.
This case leaves Virginiawithout clear legal precedenton the treatment of embryos in divorce disputes, but italigns with a broader national debateon how the law should definefetal personhood and reproductive rightsin the wake of landmark court rulings.
Sign up below for The Daily Consumer, our newsletter on the latest consumer news, including recalls, scams, lawsuits and more.
Posted: 2025-03-17 21:22:38
