McGeorge Law Review Volume 27 | Issue 3 Article 9 1-1-1996 Playing God Or Playing Scientist: A Constitutional Analysis of State Laws Banning Embryological Procedures June Coleman University of the Pacific; cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation June Coleman, Playing God Or Playing Scientist: A Constitutional Analysis of State Laws Banning Embryological Procedures, 27 Pac. L. J. 1331 (1996). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr/vol27/iss3/9 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Law Reviews at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Playing God or Playing Scientist: A Constitutional Analysis of State Laws Banning Embryological Procedures June Coleman' TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND ............................................ 1336 A. Embryo Creation ..................................... 1336 B. Legislative History ................................... 1338 C. Proposed Guidelines .................................. 1340 D. Ethical Considerations ................................ 1342 II. STATE LAWS ............................................. 1349 A. Legislative Intent ..................................... 1350 B. Cryopreservation..................................... 1353 C. PreimplantationScreening ............................. 1354 D. Gene Therapy ....................................... 1356 E. Cell Line Development ................................ 1358 F. Twinning ........................................... 1358 G. Basic Research ...................................... 1359 III. CONSTITUTIONALITY ...................................... 1360 A. Vagueness .......................................... 1360 B. Right to Privacy ...................................... 1362 1. FundamentalRights ............................... 1362 a. Reproductive Technologies as FundamentalRights .... 1364 i. Embryo Cryopreservationand Embryo Twinning .. 1364 ii. PreimplantationScreening ................... 1365 iii. Gene Therapy ............................. 1365 b. Cell Line Development and Basic Research .......... 1367 i. Basic Research as FundamentalKnowledge ...... 1367 ii. Basic Research as a Burden on Reproductive Decision- M aking ................................... 1368 iii. Basic Research as Medical Care ............... 1369 iv. Basic Research and the Next-of-Kin's Right to Dispose of the Deceased ............................ 1370 v. Basic Research and Organ Donations ........... 1371 * B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 1989; J.D., University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, to be conferred 1997. 1 owe sincere thanks to my family for their love and understanding, and my mom and dad who always encouraged me to do my best and, supported me in all my endeavors. Additionally, I appreciate the time that many friends spent proofreading this piece. 1331 Pacific Law Journal/ Vol. 27 2. Compelling State Interest ........................... 1372 a. State Interests ................................. 1373 i. Interests Related to Protectingthe Life of the Fetus 1373 ii. Interests Related to the Moral Status of the Embryo 1374 iii. Morality as an Interest ....................... 1376 b. ParentalInterests .............................. 1377 i. Psychologicaland Mental Impact .............. 1377 ii. Impact on Reproductive Decisions ............. 1379 iii. Parental Interests Outside of the Reproductive Decision .................................. 1379 c. Balancing the Interests .......................... 1380 i. Reproductive Choices ....................... 1380 ii. Public Health .............................. 1381 iii. Donationfor Research Purposes ............... 1382 iv. Disposal of the Deceased ..................... 1383 3. RestrictingResearch Without Absolute Bans ............ 1384 C. Right to Research .................................... 1386 D. RationalBasis ....................................... 1395 IV. CONCLUSION ............................................ 1397 1332 1996/Analysis of State Laws Banning Embryological Procedures A middle aged man anxiously awaits the results from the expensive in vitro fertilization' process with his wife, uncertain whether the procedure worked this time.2 A young woman frets that she is a carrier of Tay-Sachs3 and will pass this disease to her unborn baby.4 A twelve year-old boy listens intently, displaying unusual maturity, as his doctor explains a new treatment for his terminal heart disease to his parents.5 A newborn fills her lungs, preparing to issue her first cry, unaware of the congenital defect which will shorten her life.6 Each of these people could benefit from embryological research.7 Embryological research may 1. See NAT'L INST. OFHEALTH, REPORTOFTHEHUMANEMBRYO RESEARCH PANEL D-6 (Sept. 1994) [hereinafter NIH REPORT] (defining "in vitro fertilization" as a reproductive procedure which assists parents in reproduction through fertilization outside of the womb); infra notes 28-34 and accompanying text (describing the in vitro fertilization process); see also Richard P. Dickey, The Medical Status of the Embryo, 32 LoY. L. REV. 317, 323-24 (1986) (discussing the history of in vitro fertilization). The first child born through in vitro fertilization occurred in England during 1978, and the first successful use of in vitro fertili- zation in the United States occurred in 1981. Id. 2. In vitro fertilization is an uncertain, risky and costly procedure. See Bonnie Steinbock, Ethical Issues in Human Embryo Research, in 2 PAPERS COMMISSIONED FOR THE HUM. EMBRYO RES. PANEL, NAT'L INST. OF HEALTH 27 (1994) (stating that success rates may creep as high as the mid-30% range, though the average success rate is between 12% and 20%); id.at 33 (discussing the expense of in vitro fertilization, from $5000 to $12,000 per attempt); Kim Schaefer, Comment, In-vitro Fertilization,Frozen Embryos and the Right to Privacy-AreMandatory Donation Laws Constitutional,22 PAC. LJ.87, 91 (1990) (noting that, according to the Office of Technological Assessment's infertility report to Congress in 1988, in vitro fertilization procedures have resulted in pregnancies only 17% of the time and in live births only 11% of the time); Kathryn Dor6 Perkins, More Infertile Couples PlacingHope in Clinics, SACRAMENTO BEE, Jan. 1, 1996, at Al (stating that in vitro fertilization results in childbirth only 18% of the time, but that clients are increasingly willing to pay $10,000 to $60,000 for a chance at giving birth as evidenced by a 133% increase in the number of infertility clinics). See generally Dickey, supra note 1, at 330-32 (discussing more fully the success rates as of 1986). 3. See RICHARD SLOANE, THE SLOANE-DORLAND ANNOTATED MEDICAL LEGAL DICTIONARY 216 (1987) [hereinafter SLOANE] (defining 'Tay-Sachs" as an infantile form of cerebral sphingolipidosis resulting from defective lipid metabolism, a recessive genetic trait which typically manifests itself in people of Ashkenazic Jewish decent and is characterized by degeneration of the brain cells, progressive dementia, progressive vision loss which leads to blindness, paralysis, and death). 4. Albert Gore, Jr. & Steve Owens, The Challenge ofBiotechnology, 3 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 336, 352 (1985); see id. (noting that gene therapy can provide a cure for this genetic disease). 5. John C. Fletcher & Kenneth J. Ryan, FederalRegulations for Fetal Research:A Casefor Reform, 15 LAW, MED. & HEALTH CARE 126, 131-32 (1987); see id. (suggesting that fetal organ transplantation shows promise of saving infants and children who are dying from heart, liver, or kidney disease, but noting that more experimentation is needed). 6. Id. at 132; Larry Thompson, Cell Test Before Implant Helps Ensure Healthy "Test Tube" Baby, WASH. POST, Apr. 27, 1992, at A3; see id. (noting that further research with embryos would enable diagnosis of genetic defects at the earliest possible stage). 7. Jonathan Van Blerkom, The History, Current Status and Future Direction of Research Involving Human Embryos, in 2 PAPERS COMMISSIONED FOR THE HUM. EMBRYO RES. PANEL, NAT'L INST. OF HEALTH 1, 2-6 (1994); see id. at 13-20 (discussing the implications of embryological research in a variety of areas, including reproduction, discovery of genetic disorders, and cell line development); see also NAT'L INST. OF HEALTH, DEVELOPMENT OF NIH GUIDELINES GOVERNING RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN IN VITRO FERTILIZATION AND THE PREIMPLANTATION EMBRYO (1995) [hereinafter NIH GUIDELINES] (noting that the National Institute of Health's (NIH's) Embryo Research Panel discussed benefits of embryological research, including advances in the treatment of infertility, pregnancy loss, birth defects, and cancer; development of 1333 PacificLaw Journal/ Vol. 27 lead to better in vitro fertilization techniques, cures for fatal diseases, prevention of congenital defects, or allow parents to make reproductive decisions regarding abortion.8 Embryological research is conducted in many countries worldwide, 9 but using embryos for research in the United States is restricted in several states. 10However President Clinton supports changes in federal policy regarding the use of embryos in research projects." While changes in the political climate surrounding embryo- preimplantation diagnosis of genetic and chromosomal abnormalities; contraception innovations; and research