Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
She never had an order of the court for child support either.Here's a follow-up from the 1995 story:
A 10-year-old girl conceived from the frozen sperm of a dead man cannot receive his Social Security benefits, a federal appeals court ruled.
A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a lower court's rejection of child survivor benefits for Brandalynn Vernoff, who was born nearly four years after her father's death in 1995.
The case involved sperm that Bruce Vernoff's widow, Gabriela, had a doctor extract after he died unexpectedly from an allergic reaction. In 1998, she used it for in vitro fertilization and gave birth to Brandalynn in a Los Angeles hospital on March 17, 1999.
Gabriela Vernoff later applied for child survivor benefits from the Social Security Administration but was rejected. A federal judge in Santa Ana also rejected her claims.
The appellate panel ruled that while there was an "undisputed biological relationship" between Brandalynn and her father, the girl was not a dependent at the time of his death as defined by Social Security regulations and by California law on the establishment of paternity.
The three-judge panel noted that California law only grants inheritance rights to children conceived within one year after a parent has died. The ruling also said there was no evidence that Vernoff consented to his wife's artificial insemination, which under state law would be required to establish his paternity.
Gabriela Vernoff "has not provided any evidence of consent to the conception by the insured or his willingness to support Brandalynn," the ruling said.
Maybe they could go to a ballgame, have some beer, and watch the Angels play.
She never had an order of the court for child support either.Here's a follow-up from the 1995 story:
A 10-year-old girl conceived from the frozen sperm of a dead man cannot receive his Social Security benefits, a federal appeals court ruled.
A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a lower court's rejection of child survivor benefits for Brandalynn Vernoff, who was born nearly four years after her father's death in 1995.
The case involved sperm that Bruce Vernoff's widow, Gabriela, had a doctor extract after he died unexpectedly from an allergic reaction. In 1998, she used it for in vitro fertilization and gave birth to Brandalynn in a Los Angeles hospital on March 17, 1999.
Gabriela Vernoff later applied for child survivor benefits from the Social Security Administration but was rejected. A federal judge in Santa Ana also rejected her claims.
The appellate panel ruled that while there was an "undisputed biological relationship" between Brandalynn and her father, the girl was not a dependent at the time of his death as defined by Social Security regulations and by California law on the establishment of paternity.
The three-judge panel noted that California law only grants inheritance rights to children conceived within one year after a parent has died. The ruling also said there was no evidence that Vernoff consented to his wife's artificial insemination, which under state law would be required to establish his paternity.
Gabriela Vernoff "has not provided any evidence of consent to the conception by the insured or his willingness to support Brandalynn," the ruling said.
You're kidding, right? Of course it is the right of the deceased.....otherwise the heirs could make up the wills. Most wills are carried out as specified by the deceased. Sure, a will can be contested, but unless you have a really good case, the will is carried out as specified. I don't know where you get your information.....seems to me you are going by what "you think".How can you claim that a woman is brain dead and put on life support to save the life of the baby, THEN claim that the rights of a living woman were violated?
Her rights were violated - you think it would be okay for someone to dig up your dead body and drag it around?
It's not a violation of civil rights! Surely you don't believe that the dead have civil rights. You can't be that stupid.
The dead were not always dead. You seem to not be able to grasp much. If the dead have no rights, why then have wills? Surely that is a simple question which you should be able to answer?
The dead have no civil rights. Wills are to protect the property rights of heirs. It's not a right of the deceased. Wills are set aside all the time by contestants.
What you see Uncensored doing is creating a ridiculous lie to argue against. That's all he's got.
What is ridiculous about it? Isn't every live birth the tragedy of an abortion never performed?
That you generalize with such ridiculous statements just shows how utterly immature you are. If you believe that Liberals want every pregnancy to end in abortion, there wouldn't be any liberals giving birth. That is utterly ridiculous and ignorant and doesn't even deserve a response.
Notice that the dead man had absolutely no say in the harvesting and use of his sperm. After death the corpse became the property of his wife who could do with it whatever she wanted with it.
Her rights were violated - you think it would be okay for someone to dig up your dead body and drag it around?
It's not a violation of civil rights! Surely you don't believe that the dead have civil rights. You can't be that stupid.
The dead were not always dead. You seem to not be able to grasp much. If the dead have no rights, why then have wills? Surely that is a simple question which you should be able to answer?
The sperm of dead men:
The first baby born as a result of sperm taken from an already dead man was successfully delivered in Los Angeles earlier this month. Gaby Vernoff had become pregnant using sperm that had been taken from her husband Bruce, 30 hours after his unexpected death in 1995.
Okay, this ^^^ sounds really macabre, but I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
You believe that a dead pregnant woman has a right to an abortion but here is a dead man having his sperm extracted so that he can become a dead father.
I believe that it will now become important for a man to specify his wishes in a will if he doesn't want that to be done to him.
Here's the same story from last week:
Stephanie Lucas of Tucson, Arizona turned to crowdfunding site GoFundMe to raise money to extract the sperm from her brain-dead fiancé so she could have his baby. As reported by ABC 15, the man in question, Cameron Robinette, died in a motorcycle accident on Halloween and, to honor the man she had hoped to spend the rest of her life with, Stephanie hopes to be artificially inseminated with Cameron’s sperm to carry on his legacy.Here's another story dealing with Australia's Supreme Court decision from last December:
A WOMAN who wants to use her dead husband's sperm to start the family they dreamt of has won the right to do so in a landmark South Australian court decision.
The Supreme Court says the "determined and courageous" woman is entitled to take possession of, and use, the sperm in IVF treatments to have her late husband's child.
Notice that the dead man had absolutely no say in the harvesting and use of his sperm. After death the corpse became the property of his wife who could do with it whatever she wanted with it.
A wife cannot do whatever she wants with the corpse of her dead husband, we do have laws on the disposition of the dead, you know, and there are limitations. As far as harvesting sperm, I guess if we are able to harvest organs from the dead upon the next of kin's requests, sperm may not be considered any different, however, if a man doesn't want to donate his organs or his sperm, he might want to put in in his will, and I doubt that any reputable doctor/clinic/hospital would dare to remove his sperm regardless of how much the wife desires it.
The surviving next of kin have a right to the immediate possession of a decedent’s body for preservation and burial and that damages will be awarded against any person who unlawfully interferes with that right or improperly deals with the decedent’s body. This right, characterized as the right of sepulcher under common law, continues to be recognized by the courts notwithstanding the passage of many hundreds of years. - See more at: Disposal of Dead Bodies - Dead Bodies
Disposal of Dead Bodies - Dead Bodies
Here is a legal analysis of the moral obligations owed to the dead because the dead have no legal rights. In death they become objects and are no longer people.
Do we have moral obligations to the dead Rebecca Broadbent - Academia.edu
What you see Uncensored doing is creating a ridiculous lie to argue against. That's all he's got.
What is ridiculous about it? Isn't every live birth the tragedy of an abortion never performed?
That you generalize with such ridiculous statements just shows how utterly immature you are. If you believe that Liberals want every pregnancy to end in abortion, there wouldn't be any liberals giving birth. That is utterly ridiculous and ignorant and doesn't even deserve a response.
None of them have posted anything that's worth reading much less a response.
I just scroll by their posts. I won't read their hate and lies.
I believe that it will now become important for a man to specify his wishes in a will if he doesn't want that to be done to him.
Who would listen? Feminists don't believe men have reproductive rights, remember?
This is happening all over states that have imposed restrictions on abortion. One case that wasn't in the article that happened just a year or so ago. A pregnant woman in Texas was found on the floor of her home by her husband. She wasn't breathing and he called 9-11. She was resuscitated and taken to the hospital. She was diagnosed as brain dead. However because she was 14 weeks pregnant, the hospital ignored her written wishes of DNR and not hooking her up to machines to keep her alive, the hospital hooked her up to machines. The husband had to go to court to get her taken off the machines. The state of Texas tried to incubate a mostly dead fetus in a dead woman's body.
This is what happens to women when their rights are taken from them only because she's pregnant and the state gives the fetus more rights than the living woman.
WITH the success of Republicans in the midterm elections and the passage of Tennessee’s anti-abortion amendment, we can expect ongoing efforts to ban abortion and advance the “personhood” rights of fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses.
But it is not just those who support abortion rights who have reason to worry. Anti-abortion measures pose a risk to all pregnant women, including those who want to be pregnant.
Such laws are increasingly being used as the basis for arresting women who have no intention of ending a pregnancy and for preventing women from making their own decisions about how they will give birth.
How does this play out? Based on the belief ..
More at link.
Edited for copyright compliance.
Lynn M. Paltrow is a lawyer and the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, where Jeanne Flavin, a sociology professor at Fordham University, is the president of the board of directors.
Pregnant, and No Civil Rights - NYTimes.com
Notice that the dead man had absolutely no say in the harvesting and use of his sperm. After death the corpse became the property of his wife who could do with it whatever she wanted with it.
A wife cannot do whatever she wants with the corpse of her dead husband, we do have laws on the disposition of the dead, you know, and there are limitations. As far as harvesting sperm, I guess if we are able to harvest organs from the dead upon the next of kin's requests, sperm may not be considered any different, however, if a man doesn't want to donate his organs or his sperm, he might want to put in in his will, and I doubt that any reputable doctor/clinic/hospital would dare to remove his sperm regardless of how much the wife desires it.
The surviving next of kin have a right to the immediate possession of a decedent’s body for preservation and burial and that damages will be awarded against any person who unlawfully interferes with that right or improperly deals with the decedent’s body. This right, characterized as the right of sepulcher under common law, continues to be recognized by the courts notwithstanding the passage of many hundreds of years. - See more at: Disposal of Dead Bodies - Dead Bodies
Disposal of Dead Bodies - Dead Bodies
You are aware that what you quoted is in exact opposition to your expressed understanding.
How can you claim that a woman is brain dead and put on life support to save the life of the baby, THEN claim that the rights of a living woman were violated?
How can you claim that a woman is brain dead and put on life support to save the life of the baby, THEN claim that the rights of a living woman were violated?
good point
If I put in my will that I will distribute my estate to my daughters on the condition that they not marry black men, a court will disregard my will and distribute my estate to my daughters even if they marry black men. However, if I'm alive, then I'm free to give my daughters significant gifts upon their marriages or withhold any gift if they marry black men and no court can force me to give my daughters gifts.How can you claim that a woman is brain dead and put on life support to save the life of the baby, THEN claim that the rights of a living woman were violated?
good point
Good point! Really? When a person makes a decision to not be put on life support when they die, while they are still alive, and a hospital decides to do so anyway, they are violating the rights made by a living woman. It doesn't seem that complicated to me...
