Assisted Reproductive Technology: The Legal Nightmare of Cloning and Genetic Perfection

 

This guest post is courtesy of Nicholas Hasenbalg, Regent Law 2L:

When replicating something, such as a cookie recipe, one would want to create it without defects. You want to make it as it is intended before trying to replicate the procedure. For example, try a batch with brown sugar instead of natural cane sugar to see what tastes the best. Alternatively, you could employ a method of creating a copy with minor differences to arrive at an ideal conclusion, switching recipes after trying a batch. Then, once you have the perfect cookie, you repeat the process and call it your famous personal recipe, innocently baked in a college student's dorm room oven.

That type of layman's level scientific method of calculation sounds great when thinking about flowers, sugar, chocolate, and other ingredients. However, when your ingredients are gametes of a sperm, egg, and uterus, and the basic building blocks of DNA that make up a human being, that calculation seems far colder and more horrific. It suddenly matters who the chief is in the case of parentage, or who is the proverbial oven in the case of surrogacy, and most importantly, what happens to the unbaked embryo. Wouldn't we give more weight to having cloned embryos than we would to freezing a perfect cookie recipe to share with others, only to then bake it in their ovens?

The clearest risk here is that you can, instead of having multiple unique children born by the mother impregnated through natural means, implant an egg with the father's sperm, clone the resulting embryo, freeze it, then implant that cloned "perfect child" into someone more physically capable of having the child. Alternatively, worse, selling the cloned embryo to a surrogate mother who has the child so she (who may not have healthy eggs but can carry and give birth to the child) can have a genetically perfect child when born.

In the Hitchhiker's Guide to ART,  it is made clear to me that mix-ups are not uncommon in these medical facilities that engage in assisted reproductive technology, well, when you significantly increase the amount of embryos via cloning, this statistical risk of transplanting instead of a unique child, you get a child that is not only not the one you intended to have, but one who has an identical genetic clone of itself both in labs and probably born and walking around somewhere else. A clear example is the New York case, Perry Rogers v. Fasano, where the child born was not of the same race as the intended parents. To prevent this in cloning, states should have a clear consent-based contract or restrict cloning of their ART embryos to prevent further embryo discarding or scientific experimentation on embryos. An argument can be made for the potential scientific advancement, but I have a moral objection to such experimentation.

The article also highlights that these issues have a profound ripple effect on families, as they impact not only the child but also their siblings, friends, future spouses, and future children. For each of these groups, there are personal, emotional, social, financial, and physical concerns. Personally, being part of a family with two sets of twins on my mom's side, I have a very wholesome and complex relationship with people who are so similar genetically, even if it is not by natural means. If you include someone who is not genetically unsuitable in the same family, it can create massive emotional ripple effects for the entire family. Cloning consent forms should not be signed by the genetic donors alone. Still, they should be expanded to include related family members or any children born, and should be made aware of the potential consequences of having another one of themselves created.

Exploitation and degradation of women in the Surrogacy industry to make infants objects and children commodities is made more apparent when you include the embryo being implanted being genetically identical to another embryo. It increases the commodification from the simple concept of a surrogate birthing a unique child to a world where an identical child was requested because another clone was asked, and that surrogate birthed them just fine.

All of these issues arise due to a lack of legal guidelines that cannot keep pace with the profound and rapidly advancing scientific developments. Certain states, such as Louisiana, have defined what an embryo is and its rights, which could be expanded to include the rights of a cloned embryo in comparison to a non-cloned embryo. However, states like Oregon have contract law control, which, when thinking about the scientific use of clones, would create a fearfully palatable world where adoptive parents of the US government decide they want to patent a genetic super soldier, preventing adoptive parents from suing for their now adoptive kids' likeness being everywhere, causing violence on behalf of our government. 

In conclusion, regardless of the state, the lack of guidelines in a rapidly developing scientific field should be a concern for legislators, who should improve and implement laws based on those established by other states that have addressed the issue. The legal system should begin to address this issue, regardless of who currently has the most well-developed regulations surrounding ART issues, when addressing cloning, to prevent major morally grey lawsuits from reaching court first, and to help restore and strengthen families. 

 

Legal Concerns when the Past Generation is Raising the Next Generation

 

 This guest post is from Rachael Seida, Regent Law 2L:

A mother grabs her work bag and waves goodbye to her children and their caregiver, their grandmother. A dad leaves the house on Sunday night to drive to another city for work, comfortable in the knowledge that his parents will take care of his son while he is gone for the week. Elsewhere, two preschoolers are playing on a playground during the week and the little girl is being pushed on the swings by her grandfather because her parents are not around anymore. 

A common picture in modern America is that of grandparents raising their grandchildren. The reasons for this setup vary drastically from simple daycare needs while mom and dad are at work, to the grandparents having primary custody because the parents are not fit. Currently, over 2.4 million children live in "grandfamilies" or kinship care arrangements (Annie E. Casey Foundation, September 2024).

However, another common aspect of this picture is a lack of legal protection for all the parties involved. It is normal that a need for a quick reaction to a bad situation or access to limited resources necessitates that the parties simply do the best they can initially to handle the situation. However, as the situation stabilizes, it is key that everyone consider and take the right legal steps to protect the legal rights of parties involved in the case of emergencies or even if relationships deteriorate.

Medical Care

Even if parents are simply utilizing the grandparents for daily care, it is important to consider how medical care (both routine and emergency) will be handled. Parents and grandparents should come to an understanding of what to do in the various situations that might arise when taking care of children. Additionally, the parents should consider executing a medical consent form that gives the grandparents the right to make medical decisions an emergency.

Daily Life Decisions

Caregivers for children make a million decisions ever single day. What should we serve for breakfast, lunch, dinner? Should we go on a walk to the playground? Should we sign up for swimming or ballet lessons? Is that skirt too short? It’s amazing that parents and grandparents don’t end up with decision paralysis more often!

A parental designation form or grandparent power of attorney are helpful forms to make it clear to authorities that the grandparents have the rights to make daily decision for their grandchildren. Another benefit of these forms is that (correctly executed) they can also provide protections for the grandparents in a situation where relationships sour. If the parents decide that they don’t like some of the decisions that the grandparents made for the children, then the grandparents can defend themselves against such accusations with these forms.

Temporary Guardianship

No one plans on relationships deteriorating or even complete estrangement, but it does happen. If a parent is planning to leave for a short time to work in another city or perhaps to recover from illness, it is a good idea to consider executing a Caregiver's Authorization Affidavit or another type of temporary guardianship form. This form will protect the parents’ rights to recover their child in the sad case of a breakdown in relationship with the caregiver.

Additionally, if/when the parents return and regain custody of the children, grandparents should be aware that if they allow the child to return to the parents' care without formally terminating or modifying the custody order, the grandparents could potentially be held liable for anything that happens with the child’s well-being.

TLDR-Summary:

As the past generation is stepping up to help care for the next generation, it is important to keep in mind that the legal system may not always recognize situations outside of what has been the “cultural norm.” Parents and Grandparents should seek legal counsel and sign paperwork to both protect the legal rights of all parties and smooth the way for the grandparents to be able to effectively and efficiently take care of the children.

Protecting Caregivers Against Protective Statutes

 

This guest post is from Amy Krueger, Regent Law 2L: 

Because caregiving often involves pouring years into someone who may no longer be productive or attractive or even good company, caregiving can be one of the most beautiful expressions of love as well as one of the most difficult tasks a person can undertake. California and Illinois apply a presumption of undue influence that, if not rebutted, will void certain testamentary gifts to certain caregivers. Although surely warranted in many cases to protect the elderly, does this disincentivize an already thankless task?

In 2010, California’s Lake County News reported, “The presumption has often raised major concern with respect to even legitimate gifts made to genuine friends (who stepped in when their dependent friend needed help) due to uncertainty over the definition of ‘care custodian.’”

We first look at when the presumption actually applies:

California: California Probate Code Section 21380(a) applies the presumption of fraud or undue influence to “donative transfers” (i.e., testamentary gifts and other gifts) to a dependent adult’s “care custodian” if the transfer instrument was executed during provision of services or shortly before or after that time. Under Section 21382, gifts of $5,000 or less are often allowed, and gifts to a variety of family members are also fine. Section 21362 defines “care custodian,” excluding unpaid caregivers with a pre-existing “personal relationship with the dependent adult” from the presumption.

Illinois: The Probate Act of 1975, 755 ILCS 5/4a, applies the presumption of a void transfer due to fraud, duress, or undue influence to transfers (i.e., gifts and non-gifts) made to a person’s “caregiver” on or after the dependent’s death. Transfers up to $20,000 are not subject to this presumption. A “caregiver” may be paid or unpaid, but a family member is not considered to be a “caregiver.”

Neither statute applies the presumption of undue influence to family members, thus alleviating what could be a major concern for some of the most common caregivers. 

California’s statute also excludes those who have had a “personal relationship” with the dependent at least ninety days before provision of services. California caregivers who do not meet the exclusions may wish to ensure that their remuneration is not characterized as a gift, even if they are willing to wait to receive fair payment for services rendered until the death of the dependent.

The Illinois statute is a bit trickier because more people fall under the “caregiver” definition and because non-donative transfers are included in the potentially void transactions. In an insightful post, Attorney Jeffrey R. Gottlieb observes, “[T]here is no requirement that the person giving the assistance ever consider or label themselves as a caregiver — a helpful friend could very well be deemed a caregiver.” Illinois non-family caregivers may wish to ensure payments for services are contracted and payable over the term of service, thus obligating the estate to make payment in the event the dependent does not have enough liquid assets while living.

Although it may be uncomfortable to talk money at a vulnerable time in someone’s life, caregivers who do not take proactive steps to ensure compensation may find that they are the ones in a vulnerable position after years of service. A conversation about compensation can be undertaken with a third party who understands the situation and who can help provide solutions so that caregiving can continue and caregivers can be cared for.  

 

This post provides a high-level overview. It is advisable to discuss potentially problematic transfers with an attorney licensed in the applicable state.

 

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Is AI is Getting Too Risqué for Your Family?

 This guest post is from Hannah Brown, Regent Law 3L & current Bioethics student:

          AI chatbots are going to start acting like adults. One of the newest outputs from Grok, Elon Musk’s chatbot, and possibly soon from ChatGPT is sexually explicit content. Grok allows its users to create an image with its “Spicy Mode.” As of now, Grok does require that a user input his birth year, but there is no identity verification process, so anyone, including minors, can easily use this function. To use Grok generally, a user must be thirteen years old, and the platform requires that for any minors they must have their legal guardian’s permission to use the platform. However, it is on the guardians and parents to check that their teenagers are using the platform appropriately.

According to Sam Altman, OpenAI and ChatGPT had been restricting their platforms to be careful with mental health issues, but now they plan to “treat adult users like adults” and will allow erotica for verified adults beginning in December 2025. ChatGPT uses an age prediction model. The model predicts how old a user is, and if it believes the user is under eighteen, then it will include extra content protections to reduce sexually explicit material. If this happens and the user is over eighteen, he can verify his age with a government ID and selfie to reduce the restrictions.

With Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, where the Supreme Court upheld a state age verification requirement, ChatGPT, Grok, and other chatbots may soon need to require stricter age verifications to protect minor children. If the platforms want to treat adults like adults, they need to also treat children like children and not allow them to so easily stumble across sexually explicit material.

https://grokimagine.ai/grok-spicy

You Are What You Eat: Raising Healthy Children

 

This guest post is courtesy of Regent Law 3L Andrew Mintz:

 

          While oftentimes expressed lightheartedly, the old saying “you are what you eat” holds a lot of truth, especially in the development of growing children. According to the Mayo Clinic, a proper balanced diet is important for children and adults of all ages, but is especially important in the early development years of a child. A diet focused on nutrient-dense foods including proteins, fruits, vegetables, grains, and dairy will be the best source of vitamins, minerals, and carbohydrates that promote physical and mental development; it is also recommended for parents to limit foods high in added sugars, artificial dyes, saturated fats, and sodium.

          In recent years, one artificial dye in particular has caught the attention of the public more than others; this dye is red 40. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for food use in 1971, red 40 has become a commonly used artificial coloring by food manufacturers and fast food chains alike. According to MD Anderson Cancer Center, while research is still being conducted, concerns have been raised about red 40 specifically being linked to hyperactivity and neurobehavioral issues, as well as higher risks of cancer in children. Specifically towards the support for risks to cancer, MD Anderson cites an FDA press release from January 2025 announcing a ban on red 3 from being used for food use after two studies concluded that high exposure to red 3 led to male lab rats developing tumors.

One priority of the current U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been to address the issue of unnecessary artificial dyes in foods. In April 2025, HHS alongside the FDA announced measures being taken to encourage a shift away from all petroleum-based synthetic dyes to natural alternatives. Red 40 and the five other main synthetic dyes are the target of these measures; many food manufacturing companies have already agreed to phase out these dyes from food products by the end of 2026 or 2027. Internationally, the European Union has implemented guidelines that require food products that contain red 40 to place a warning label that states the dye “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” Additionally, countries like Norway and Iceland have taken even more extreme measures to protect children from the effects of artificial dyes by banning the use of red 40 in food products altogether. To follow in these footsteps, the Ban Harmful Food Dyes Act was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in August 2025, which would ban artificial dyes, including red 40, from food products. Since its introduction, the bill has since been referred to committee and is awaiting approval before being brought to the House Floor for a vote.

It is encouraging that progress has been made on this issue this year, but there is still much progress to be made. With the introduction of legislation such as the Ban Harmful Food Dyes Act and through the work of Secretary Kennedy, children will have healthier alternatives that leave a long-term positive impact on their development.

 

Sources:

1.      https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/childrens-health/in-depth/nutrition-for-kids/art-20049335

2.     https://health.clevelandclinic.org/red-dye-40

3.     https://www.mdanderson.org/cancerwise/are-food-dyes-unhealthy.h00-159775656.html

4.    https://www.fda.gov/food/hfp-constituent-updates/fda-revoke-authorization-use-red-no-3-food-and-ingested-drugs

5.     https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/hhs-fda-phase-out-petroleum-based-synthetic-dyes-nations-food-supply

6.    https://www.fda.gov/food/color-additives-information-consumers/tracking-food-industry-pledges-remove-petroleum-based-food-dyes

7.     https://imbarex.com/where-is-red-40-banned-all-the-countries-and-why/

8.    https://meng.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/meng-introduces-legislation-banning-harmful-food-dyes#

A Crisis of the West

This guest post is from Mark Schultz, Regent Law 2L:

In the 1990’s, the State of Michigan was ground zero in a nationwide debate over physician assisted suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian was a Michigan physician who seemed to have a lifetime infatuation with death. He assisted in the deaths of 130 people between 1990 and 199.[1]

The legal landscape at the time was uncertain. Michigan enacted a temporary ban on assisted suicide,[2] mostly to buy time for legislators to mull things over before crafting more permanent legislation.

Kevorkian challenged the temporary ban on assisted suicide and lost at the Michigan Supreme Court,[3] but the law soon expired. Kevorkian escalated his practice of sending elderly patients to their deaths and promoting assisted suicide. Kevorkian and his attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, who used his newfound defense lawyer publicity to run for Michigan Governor, pushed for legal physician assisted suicide across the country.

Kevorkian’s assisted suicide advocacy efforts had opposite effect he intended. His position proved to be far outside the Overton Window of Michiganders. In 1998, Michigan enacted a ban on physician assisted suicide.[4] Dr. Kevorkian didn’t care; he continued to kill old people and was soon convicted of second-degree murder under that statute.[5] Two and a half decades later, the debate over physician assisted suicide continues, even when it lacks high-profile doctors and patients to bring it to light.

Debates about assisted suicide tend to focus on theoretical concepts like the sanctity of life, personal liberty, care for the elderly, and informed consent. Both sides often fail to see real-world pitfalls of physician assisted suicide.

Older people who are nearing death think about things in a different light. They want to be on good terms with God and with as many people as possible. While this is a great intention, it can leave them vulnerable. One fear of the elderly is being a burden. They care so much for others as they prepare to leave this world that they don’t want to inconvenience others on their way out. This is when a theoretical right to die public policy measure becomes a duty to die in many people’s minds.

Many people today in nursing homes have very early childhood memories of the Great Depression. They worked and saved their entire lives so their kids wouldn’t have to wait in breadlines or hope a world war lifts them out of poverty. Their concern for others combined with financial costs associated with keeping them alive can coerce them to choose death when physician assisted suicide is a legal option.

Many people require specialized care for many years at the end of their lives. Their specific medical situation may prevent them from living with a son or daughter, even if both parties strongly desire it. While assisted living is very expensive, living in a skilled care facility magnifies that expense many times over. A Roth IRA or employer retirement account that took discipline and decades to build can quickly disappear when used to pay for a nursing home. Many people protect assets in a trust as part of a good estate plan and attempt to qualify for entitlements such as Medicaid, but many estate assets may still be subject to recovery by the government. Questions can begin to linger in people’s minds: “Is it worth it for me to spend all my money to live like this for just a few more years? I really want my kids and grandkids to have my mutual fund portfolio. Everyone says it’s ok and legal now to have my doctor help me die a little faster. Maybe I should just do that.” Beneficiaries can think things like “Would I rather visit Grandpa in the nursing home for the next 3 years, or would I rather be thankful for the good times we had together and instead have a share of his stock account that is quickly depleting?” Public policy in American must not reach the point of making physician assisted death look more appealing and valuable than human life.

Suicide is a crisis in the West, despite our status as the most prosperous and free people in all human history. We cannot simultaneously prevent suicide and promote suicide in different contexts to different people just because of various pitfalls of the human condition.

---

[1]Law Library - American Law and Legal Information, https://law.jrank.org/pages/7987/Kevorkian-Jack.html

[2] MICH. COMP. LAWS § 752.1027 (1992).

[3] People v. Kevorkian, 527 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. 1994).

[4] MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.329a (1998).

[5] People v. Kevorkian, 639 N.W.2d 291 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).

Trauma Informed Lawyering Makes a Difference

 This guest post is from Elie El-Habr, Regent Law 3L:

"What on Earth is wrong with this person?" This is likely the most commonly asked question after just one day of observing courtroom proceedings in Virginia's Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. But sometimes, the question ought to be asked differently. As lawyers, we must ask it differently. "What on Earth happened to this person?" is probably a good place to start. 

Our past trauma, whether experienced in adulthood or childhood, influences almost everything we do. It affects how we deal with happiness or grief, success or failure, love or hate, and calm or stress. Almost every human emotion is flavored by trauma. We can somehow take this precept as a truism, but still struggle with conducting ourselves in accordance with it. Am I really to consider opposing counsel's childhood trauma when I am on the verge of seeking Rule 11 sanctions against him? Do I really need to worry about my client's trauma when deciding how to advise her in a divorce lawsuit? The answer depends on another question: Who am I, as a lawyer?

If I view myself as a hired gun, then considering my client's trauma could not matter less. But I strive to be more than just that. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you," Matthew 7:12. As lawyers, we are gifted. We have the gift of stepping into the role of trusted stewards, bold advocates, and wise counselors. Our clients will most likely seek our assistance during their life's lowest moments. Being a trauma-informed advocate is thus paramount. I firmly believe that to live my life with Christ as a model, to achieve the highest possible level of self-actualization, to maximize fulfillment, and to promote the kingdom of God and His glory, I must seize every opportunity to contribute to my client's personal well-being---not just his legal well-being. It starts with knowing my client. And you do not really know people until you know what happened to them.

Personally, my childhood trauma affects nearly everything I do. It was not until recently that I discovered that, but growing up in an abusive household never leaves you (with every meaning the word carries). It's a double-edged sword. Wield it properly and it can propel you to prosper. Falter with it and you'll be on your way to failure. Through my relationship with Christ, I am learning how to wield it properly. But I also want to learn how to help others deal with their trauma and how to better serve others with an understanding of how their trauma affects them.

Children Lost from Families in Immigration

 This guest post is courtesy of Sally Glanzer, Regent Law 2L:

One of the pressing issues in navigating immigration policies is how children are impacted by the detention and deportation process. Both when families are processed at the border or during deportation proceedings, families are tragically often separated. Red tape, conflicting court orders, or immigration policies have resulted in families being separated from each other. As a result, there have been reports of “lost” children with some estimated numbers of 300,000 children missing from the system. These reports have been seen in each administration, so keeping track and ensuring safety for children when they are separated from their parents has been a consistent issue.

In 2018, an immigration regulation entitled the “Zero Policy” act greatly increased the separation of parents and children. Under this strict immigration policy, parents were prosecuted under the “improper entry” while simultaneously treating children as unaccompanied minors. The parents and children were transferred to different departments, and as a result, children and parents were navigating the immigration system separated from each other.  Although this process was eventually halted because of the harm it was causing to the children, it still had a lasting impact on those families.

Under the next administration, there were reports of an estimated number of 300,000 children that were “lost” in the system. It is important to note that these numbers primarily reflect children whose address is unknown, who missed court dates, or possibly never received notice. But these children that are lost both on paper and physically is evidence of a clear lack of organization and the increased risk of trafficking and danger that these children face in a system that overwhelms them.

Regardless of the administration in power at any time, immigration reform has become a pressing concern at the hearts of many Americans. At its core, we must ensure that our policies are protecting the most vulnerable. Families need to be reunited and kept together as they navigate the immigration system. These “lost” children are significantly at risk for trafficking in a confusing system full of adults. Whether Congress enacts laws or Homeland Security operations change, immigration reform should prioritize the best interests of the child and family reunification. That advances family restoration.