REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES

In vitro Fertilization

In vitro Fertilization

Ana Victoria Sánchez Villalobos and others v. Costa Rica/Amici
(Inter-American Commission on Human Rights/Costa Rica)
In December 2004, the Center submitted an amicus brief before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in a case challenging the Costa Rica Supreme Court’s 2000 ruling that banned the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF). In its 2000 decision, the Court held that human life begins at conception and, therefore, that embryos and fetuses are entitled to the same legal protections as born individuals. The Center’s brief argues that the Court’s decision violates the right to health, to form a family, to privacy, and to benefit from scientific progress, recognized under international law. This year, a ruling is expected from the Commission that could have implications worldwide, impacting not only IVF and the right to bear children, but also the legal status of contraception and abortion.
To learn more:

• Read the Center’s amicus brief: English | Español
• Center Joins Couples’ Legal Battle Against Costa Rica’s IVF Ban
• Report - Bodies on Trial: Reproductive Rights in Latin American Courts

Medical Abortion Restrictions

Benten v. Kessler (New York)
In 1992, the Center filed a legal challenge against the Food and Drug Administration’s import ban on the abortifacient drug RU486 (mifepristone) on behalf of women who brought the drug into the United States from England.

• Fact Sheet - Laws and Regulations Affecting Medical Abortion

Rights of Children Born through Reproductive Health Technologies

Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart (SSA/Arizona)
Rhonda Gillett-Netting and Robert Netting were trying to conceive a child when he was diagnosed with cancer. During his illness, the couple made the decision to continue with in vitro fertilization treatments, even in the advent of his death. He lost his fight with cancer in February 1995. After his death, Gillett-Netting conceived twins and gave birth on August 6, 1996. Claims for survivor benefits to the twins under the Social Security Act were denied. In 2002, the Center filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking a reversal of the Social Security Administration’s decision. The trial court held that the twins were ineligible for benefits however, in 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the twins are entitled to survivor benefits under the clear terms of the Social Security Act.

• 6/10/2004 - In Vitro Twins Ruled as Deceased Father’s Legitimate Children