A case before the Texas Supreme Court over what should happen with three frozen embryos could have implications for Roe v. Wade -- the 1973 Supreme Court case that effectively barred state abortion bans -- the Los Angeles Times reports. The embryos were created by a Texas couple who divorced before the woman underwent in vitro fertilization. According to the Times, several hours before Augusta Roman was scheduled to undergo IVF, her husband at the time, Randy Roman, insisted that the procedure be canceled and that the embryos be frozen. The couple later began divorce proceedings. In the case, Augusta Roman is seeking to have the three embryos that survived the freezing process implanted, and Randy Roman is seeking to have them destroyed or to remain frozen indefinitely.

According to the Times, state courts have decided embryo cases on an individual basis because there is no federal precedent. The supreme courts of six states in similar cases generally ruled that the right of one divorcing spouse to not implant the embryos overrules the right of the other spouse to have them implanted. The Romans' attorneys believe that the case, if appealed to the Supreme Court, could undermine Roe. Some socially conservative legal theorists, who are "buoyed" by the Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold a ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortion, "believe a case involving frozen embryos could give an increasingly conservative court one vehicle for reconsidering" whether embryos have a right to life that is separate from a woman's right to choose abortion. The Texas Supreme Court is not expected to decide whether to hear the case until late this year, and a federal appeal could take several more years, the Times reports (Sack, Los Angeles Times, 5/30).