3 Principles for IVF Parents

 

In light of yesterday’s Executive Order Expanding Access to In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) parents who dream of having a child through IVF now have greater hope and access to those services.  As the Order states, “infertility struggles can make conception difficult, turning what should be a joyful experience into an emotional and financial struggle. My Administration recognizes the importance of family formation, and as a Nation, our public policy must make it easier for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have children.”

This is wonderful news, and yes, it should be easier, and better thought through by parents who choose to avail themselves of this miracle reproductive technology. 

Three very clear and necessary guiding principles must assist these very special parents: 1) parent all your created embryos, 2) protect all your created embryos, and 3) protect your marriage. Let’s call this the magic of three.

One: Parent all your created embryos.

First, in your excitement to embark on the road to parenthood, create only as many embryos as you are committed to parenting. They are your children, and you are responsible for them. State laws may or may not assist in this principle, but your first concern must be that the embryos you create are your responsibility as their parent. Only create as many as you are willing to parent. 

Two: Protect all your created embryos.

Second, never choose the options of “destruction, discarding, or experimentation” for your embryos.  These will be three of your five choices (the other two being gestation toward birth, and donation for adoption). Choosing destruction, discarding, or experimentation is choosing death for your child.  Your embryos are not just medical or scientific creations; they are your children. From the moment they come into existence, they are lives—unique, whole, and worthy of protection. Each embryo carries the same dignity as the child you long to hold in your arms. To treat them as excess, discardable, or experimental is to deny the truth of their Creator. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart” (Jeremiah 1:5). From the beginning, God sees and knows each life. Your embryos are not mere potential—they are already known, loved, and entrusted to you as their parents. Indeed, every year more human children die from IVF than do from abortion. This is a tragic and largely ignored reality, yet no less true. Protect all your created embryos.

Three: Protect your marriage.

Third, guard your loving marriage.  Many couples who seek to build their families through IVF struggle through the arduous process, to the destruction of their sexual oneness and the emotional detriment of their marriage.  Don’t allow this to happen to you.  There is a plethora of cases where divorcing IVF parents litigate the fate of their embryos because their efforts to build their families have destroyed their marriages. Take care of your spouse, and guard your marriage. Your children need your strong marriage as the foundation for your family. Protect your marriage. 

These principles ought to be agreed upon by mother and father at the outset of the process, and directions given to involved physicians, counselors, and lawyers accordingly. Doing so in writing is an excellent safeguard for everyone – especially for your miracle IVF children. 

IVF parents, you are in charge of this process.  As the EO states, “infertility struggles can make conception difficult, turning what should be a joyful experience into an emotional and financial struggle.” Never allow your dreams to be hijacked by immoral choices of death for your embryos.  And never allow you, your spouse, or your children to become merely a commodity for the booming IVF industry. “You are not your own, therefore glorify God with your body,” (I Cor 6:20), protecting too the embryonic bodies of your children as their parents, parenting them from the outset, and protecting your marriage. Pursue IVF by the magic of these three guiding principles.

Is Funding Planned Parenthood a Tax-Payer Requirement?

 

This spring, the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh whether states can put their citizens’ health first and direct limited Medicaid resources to the most qualified healthcare providers in their states rather than to abortion facilities, such as Planned Parenthood.

On Dec. 18, the high court agreed to hear Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (formerly captioned Kerr v. Planned Parenthood), where, on behalf of the Director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Alliance Defending Freedom is asking the court to protect South Carolina’s right to direct taxpayer dollars to qualified providers of life-affirming, comprehensive health care.

A pro-life family restoration focus challenges not only the ideology of Planned Parenthood, but its efficacy to protect the health of women. Abortion is not health care, and it does not restore families.

Virginia’s Slayer Rule: When Crime Prevents Inheritance

 

This guest post is from Cassidy Eason, Regent Law 3L:

In the world of wills, trusts, and estates, one of the most striking legal principles is the "Slayer Rule." Rooted in equity and public policy, the rule ensures that individuals who intentionally and unlawfully kill another person cannot profit from their wrongdoing. Virginia’s version of the Slayer Rule, codified in Va. Code § 64.2-2500, is a fascinating example of how the law navigates morality and justice in estate distribution.

What Is the Slayer Rule?

The Slayer Rule embodies the principle that "no one should profit from their own wrong." In Virginia, this means that a person who is convicted of—or found to have unlawfully and intentionally killed—another individual is disqualified from inheriting from the victim’s estate. This disqualification applies regardless of the method of inheritance, including under a will, intestacy laws, or even through survivorship in joint tenancy.

Proof Beyond Conviction

Interestingly, the Virginia statute does not require a criminal conviction to invoke the Slayer Rule. Civil courts may determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the killing was unlawful and intentional. This lower burden of proof allows the rule to apply even if criminal proceedings are inconclusive or result in an acquittal.

Practical Implications and Policy Considerations

The Slayer Rule exemplifies the law's effort to balance fairness and deterrence. It prevents the moral outrage of a killer benefiting from their crime, while also providing clarity for estate administration. However, the rule also raises questions: Should it apply to manslaughter or killings committed under mitigating circumstances? Should restitution to the victim’s family be prioritized over strict disinheritance?

How Virginia Compares

While most states have some version of the Slayer Rule, there are differences in scope and application. For instance, some jurisdictions allow the rule to apply to cases of voluntary manslaughter, while others impose more stringent requirements for proof. Virginia’s relatively straightforward approach makes it a strong example of clear legislative intent to uphold justice.

The Slayer Rule is more than a legal technicality—it reflects the interplay between law and morality. Virginia’s treatment of this doctrine ensures that justice prevails, even beyond the grave. For anyone drafting estate plans, understanding this rule is essential, as it underscores the importance of naming contingent beneficiaries and considering all possible outcomes.

By understanding the nuances of Virginia’s Slayer Rule, estate planners, legal professionals, and clients can better navigate the complexities of inheritance law while ensuring the law serves its ultimate purpose: justice.

 

Female is Very Good

 

My recently published article, The Abolition of Women, represents legal scholarship that is expanding the literature surrounding women's rights, especially in contemporary culture. In the vein of C.S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man, it labors to reveal that feminist cultural ideology today is actually working toward the annihilation of women, rather than the liberation of women.  

Essentially the article argues that "feminist legal theory, with the original objective of bringing equality for women, has been twisted to effectuate a form of annihilation of women and women’s rights." Covering reproductive rights, motherhood, and female spaces, among other important concepts subject to conflict today, it examines whether the notion of “woman” may be being reimagined toward annihilation by ideology that deconstructs the uniqueness of women, unwittingly creating the potential abolition of woman.

For example, the falsehood that women "need" abortion in order to achieve socioeconomic success in America is one of the greatest frauds perpetrated on women and girls today. Many women don't realize that this purported feminist ideology actually produces the opposite effect and furthers discriminatory views towards pregnant women and motherhood. When a system undervalues pregnancy and motherhood, naturally we will see more resistance to accommodate for either in employment, in education, essentially everywhere. We can see this when we look at discrimination in the workplace. Professor Helen Alvare points out that pregnancy discrimination has risen over 50% in the last 15 years.

Furthermore, "[a]bortion has not reduced sexual violence, and in many ways has facilitated violence against women and children." This is a significant but oft overlooked point. Studies show that the rates of intimate partner violence and reproductive control are higher for women who have abortions. Also, there are many reports that illustrate the prevalence of coerced abortions. One recent study found that over 60% of women felt some form of pressure to abort their preborn child. Young women are particularly vulnerable, and often opt for their last resort of a late term abortion because they have no support from the father of their child or from their community.

The article takes on current feminist thinking and works to free women from the bonds of weak ideology by empowering both women and men to realize that female is certainly “very good.” (Genesis 1:27, 31).  

Recognizing the potential for the abolition of woman can help to avert it and simultaneously advance family restoration.

A Personal Perspective on Organ Donation

 

This guest post is from Lauren Kessler, Regent Law 2L:

Organ donation is often seen as a generous and selfless act, but it’s essential to understand the full picture before making a decision that impacts not only your life but also your loved ones. Missouri law outlines specific provisions for organ and tissue donation, including the creation of a donor registry and the procedures involved. However, my personal experience has given me a different perspective on this issue.

I once believed in the nobility of organ donation, but that changed after a close friend’s tragic car accident. She was young, full of life, and had signed up as an organ donor. When the accident claimed her life, her parents were shocked by what happened next.

The hospital staff informed them that her status as a donor meant her organs would be taken immediately. The family had no say in the matter due to the binding legal consent she had given through the donor registry. Afterward, her parents were devastated when they saw her body. The procedures left her unrecognizable, and the experience added immense grief to their loss. Her parents had no idea she had signed up as a donor and were unprepared for the emotional and physical reality of what organ donation entails. Their pain made me question whether the system truly respects the wishes of families and donors alike.

Organ Donation Laws in Missouri

Missouri’s organ donation laws, particularly § 194.220 and § 194.225, govern the process of making anatomical gifts. Here’s an overview of how it works:

1.      Donor Registry: Missouri maintains a First Person Consent Organ and Tissue Donor Registry, which is overseen by the Department of Health and Senior Services. While people can choose to add their names to this registry, it’s entirely voluntary.

2.    Legal Consent: Adding your name to the registry signifies full legal consent to donate your organs or tissues upon death. This consent allows your organs to be used for transplantation, therapy, research, or education.

3.     Withdrawing Consent: Even if you withdraw from the registry, your family or designated agents can still make the decision to donate your organs unless you’ve formally refused under a separate provision (§ 194.235).

4.    Methods to Make a Gift: Donors can authorize anatomical gifts through a driver’s license, a will, or by communicating their intent during a terminal illness or injury in the presence of witnesses.

While these laws are designed to streamline the process and encourage organ donation, they raise critical questions about consent, family dynamics, and the emotional toll on loved ones.

The Case Against Organ Donation

1.      Lack of Family Involvement: Missouri’s laws prioritize the donor’s consent, which can leave families feeling powerless and blindsided in moments of profound grief.

2.    Emotional Trauma: The physical appearance of a loved one after organ procurement can be distressing, as my friend’s parents learned firsthand.

3.     Moral and Ethical Concerns: Organ donation often involves invasive procedures, and some may question whether these align with their personal or religious beliefs.

4.    Pressure to Donate: Society often portrays organ donation as a moral obligation, which can make individuals feel pressured into a decision without fully understanding the consequences. 

Making an Informed Decision

Organ donation is a deeply personal choice, and it’s crucial to consider all aspects before deciding. If you’re thinking about becoming a donor, ask yourself:

• Have you discussed this decision with your family?
• Do you understand the emotional and physical impact on your loved ones?
• Are you comfortable with how your body might be treated after death?

While I respect those who choose to donate, my experience has shown me the importance of careful consideration and open conversations with family members. Ultimately, your decision should reflect your values, beliefs, and priorities.

Missouri’s organ donation laws aim to simplify the process, but they can leave families unprepared for the emotional challenges that come with it. My friend’s story serves as a sobering reminder that what seems like a selfless act can have unforeseen consequences for those left behind. Before you make a decision about organ donation, take the time to weigh the pros and cons and discuss it with your loved ones.

Pray For Family Restoration Across the Nation

 

“I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people — for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” 1 Timothy 2:1-2   As we prepare for a significant moment in our nation’s history, we invite you to join us in prayer for America and its leaders. This is an important opportunity for believers to unite, seeking God’s guidance and blessings for our country. Let us pray that President Trump will lead with wisdom, humility, and discernment as he takes on this responsibility. May God’s hand guide him in decisions that will honor His principles and promote justice and peace, and help to restore families. Let us also pray for unity in our nation. We ask God to heal divisions, bring reconciliation, and inspire a spirit of cooperation among all Americans. As we look to the future, we pray that hearts across this land will turn toward God, seeking His will and trusting in His sovereignty.

Is Age Verification to Protect Children from Pornography Constitutional?

 

On January 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that is historic, considering free speech, pornography, and the protection of children online.  Free Speech Coalition vs. Paxton will determine the fate of 19 state laws protecting children from access to online pornography through mandatory age verification requirements.

 

Described by Politico as “perhaps the most bipartisan laws in the country,” age verification laws empower parents to protect their children online by making it harder for kids to access harmful content like pornography. “Sexually explicit content is harming our children and resulting in a mental health crisis,” Family Foundation of Kentucky explains their support of Kentucky House Bill 241. “We need these bills to help us to protect them.”

 

Most children are first exposed to pornography when they are somewhere between seven and 13 years old, and by the time they are 18, most of them have seen it. Furthermore, today’s porn is not only addictive, but violent, and disturbingly dehumanizing. To learn more about not only the case, but the problem, and its solutions, go to the podcast episode hosted by Joseph Kohm, Policy Director at Family Policy Alliance, with Jason Carroll, senior fellow at the Institute for Family Studies, to learn just how much is at stake in this case, as well as the research needed to understand the internet’s negative impact and harm on children and families.

 

Learn more about Jason Carroll and the Institute for Family Studies, and Joseph Kohm and his work on parental rights and #LetParentsParent, and Connect with your state policy alliance to make a difference.

AI Romance & Family Law

 

Family Law is all about domestic relationships, right? Parents, children, siblings, spouses – those relationships that matter so much to you and me and those we love.  But something different is happening… according to a recent survey of people ages 12-43, 1 out of every 4 of them think they might prefer an artificial relationship.

It is beginning to become apparent that Millennials and Gen Zers are very much drawn to the notion of Artificial Intelligence (AI) sexual relationships in particular.  “After analyzing 1 million ChatGPT interaction logs, a group of researchers found that ‘sexual role-playing’ was the second most prevalent use, following only the category of ‘creative composition.’

AI friendships are just the beginning. The Psychologist bot, a popular simulated therapist on Character.AI—where users can design their own ‘friends’—has received “more than 95 million messages from users since it was created.” According to a new Institute for Family Studies (IFS)/YouGov survey of 2,000 adults under age 40, 1% of young Americans claim to already have an AI friend, with 10% stating that they “are open to an AI friendship.” And among young adults who are not married or cohabiting, 7% are open to the idea of romantic partnership with AI. “A much higher share (25%) of young adults believe that AI has the potential to replace real-life romantic relationships. Furthermore, heavy porn users are the most open to romantic relationships with AI of any group and are also the most open to AI friendships in general.”

In addition to AI relationships, the new IFS survey also asked young Americans how they feel about the changes AI technology may bring to society. “We find that their reactions to AI are divided. About half of young adults under age 40 (55%) view AI technology as either threatening or concerning, while 45% view it as either intriguing or exciting.  There are complex socio-economic findings, too, with young adults with lower incomes and less education being more likely than those with higher incomes and more education to fear how AI will affect society. At the same time, this group is more likely than their fellow Americans who are better off to be open to a romance with AI.”

The million-dollar question you may be asking is whether these AI relationships can truly replace real-life romance and domestic happiness.  According to the IFS study, 1 out of 4 young adults do believe that AI boyfriends and girlfriends can potentially replace a real-life romantic relationship.  The inverse, however, also indicates that 3 out of 4, or 75%, do not feel that way, and instead do not see AI as any type of viable replacement for human partners.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that “young men are more likely than young women to believe that AI has the potential to replace real-life romantic relationships (28% vs. 22%)” and young men are generally more open to AI friendships than young women,” paralleling the gender difference in their views of AI’s potential for romance.

 

Digging a bit deeper to combine this phenomenon with increased online pornography use by young adults (according to another recent study the IFS conducted), research is revealing that “young adults who use porn frequently are more likely to experience loneliness and depression than those who do not. It is possible that young adults who use pornography heavily are also more open to AI companionship, especially given that so-called ‘sexbots’ are already widely used.” Providing more data on this connection, the IFS study expounds: “Among unpartnered young adults, heavy porn users turn out to be the group most open to the idea of an AI girlfriend or boyfriend. Among single young adults, those who watch porn online at least once a day are twice as likely as those who rarely, if ever watch porn to say they are open to an AI romance. More than 10% of heavy porn users say they are open to it (which includes the 1% of young adults in this group who already have an AI girlfriend or boyfriend).”  

 

These trends are important in understanding not only what is happening in our culture, but what is happening to people generally. From computing, to online society, through the pandemic, to remote study or work, a greater sense of loneliness has opened extremely significant voids that are working damaging deconstruction and destruction of quality relationships; and that affects families, and the law’s efforts to restore the family.

 

As we begin this new semester at Regent University School of Law, law students will not only learn the immediate challenges facing families today (such as AI relationships and pornography), but they will also study family law from a Biblical perspective, understanding it as a meaningful expression of human experience, as a means of pursuing God’s truth, and as an act of love and community.

 

At Regent Law the Christian faith and the Bible are incorporated into the course on Family Law at every point by the use of scriptural illumination of current family law and regulation. Scripture is used considerably throughout the course, providing not only the basis of family design and formation, but also the context for development of law and regulation to protect the individuals who comprise families, and the family itself as a timeless institution. We study family law as an expression of the human condition, discovering God’s design for families and relationships, and learning how to direct family law and policy to restore people, restore relationships, restore families, and work to restore those divine ends God intended. Particularly amid tough cultural challenges, our God and His Word are such healing salves on the wounds we deal with in the law.

 

Family Law is all about domestic relationships. Parents, children, siblings, spouses – those relationships that matter so much to you and me and those we love.  And something different is happening – family restoration - and it’s happening at Regent Law.