Publication Date
5-1991
Document Type
Casenote
Abstract
An individual's basic right to control procreation has come head-tohead with the ability of modern science to bypass the normal procedure through in vitro fertilization and cryopreservation. This was the issue that confronted the Tennessee court in a divorce proceeding between Mary Sue and Junior Davis. The appellate court held that the lower court's awarding of the fertilized ova to Mary Sue against Junior's will constituted impermissible state action and violated Junior's constitutionally protected right not to beget a child when no pregnancy had taken place. The court noted that the right to procreate and to prevent procreation are basic civil rights and ruled that, based on analysis of Tennessee's legislative acts and case decisions, the state had no compelling interest to protect by ordering implantation of the embryos against the will of another party.
Recommended Citation
Eget, Margie Mietling
(1991)
"The Solomon Decision: A Study of Davis v. Davis,"
Mercer Law Review: Vol. 42:
No.
3, Article 9.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol42/iss3/9