COMING NEXT?
State of Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals
………………………………
People
v
Harris
…………………………………….
Chief Judge H. Christopher, for the Court:
Defendant Donald J. Harris appeals his conviction for murder in the first degree arising out of his wilful destruction of living gametes on November 13, 2022.
The facts here are not in dispute. To clarify the import of this decision and make its consequences unambiguous, we set out here undisputed language from definitions from federal government authorities, quotations from Texas statutes, federal and Texas Constitutional principles, and quotes and holdings from the Supreme Court of Alabama.
This court wants to be certain there is no confusion about the extent of our holdings in this case, and therefore will quote verbatim key elements of our decision.
The federal “National Human Genome Research Institute, has provided this definition of a “gamete:”
A gamete is a reproductive cell of an animal or plant. In animals, female gametes are called ova or egg cells, and male gametes are called sperm. Ova and sperm are haploid cells, with each cell carrying only one copy of each chromosome. During fertilization, a sperm and ovum unite to form a new diploid organism.
The Texas Child Protection Act provides;
“Wilful injury to a child shall bear the same criminal and civil consequences as wilful injury to any other person in the state.“
Article III of our State Constitution, promulgated immediately subsequent to Dobbs v Jackson mandates "The Sanctity of Unborn Life.”
At issue in the case before us today is the finite definition of “unborn" life. Absent precedent in Texas jurisprudence, we take guidance from the Alabama state Supreme Court decision, Page v, Center of Reproductive Medicine,
That Court decided the question of whether the statutory phrase "unborn child" included a female gamete that had been mixed in a laboratory Petri dish with a male gamete, before being reinserted into a laboratory freezer. The intention was later to remove the now-fertilized gamete from the freezer and insert it into the uterus — a process known as IVF, i.e., “In vitro fertilization.”
We are especially persuaded by the reasoning that led to the Alabama court’s conclusion that a frozen fertilized gamete was indeed an “unborn child.” The court noted:
"Man is created in God's image" and "man's creation in God's image is the basis of the general prohibition on the intentional taking of human life"....”Therefore , so that God could eternally dwell and abide with man, he willed him to be in some manner similar to him, to bear his image.” (emphasis supplied.)
The Alabama court reasoned:
“In summary, the theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama encompasses the following : (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself. Section 36.06 recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life, that even before birth all human beings bear the image of god, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.
In short,"all men… are endowed with life by their creator. All human beings bear God’s image.”
Applying these principles, it becomes easy to see the Alabama court was correct. Indeed, its reasoning and conclusion leads inevitably to the conclusion in this case:
The Page decision, along with the 6–3 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Dobbs, and our recent Constitutional amendment, leave no doubt; the word "child “ in our state legal code includes unborn children.
Two inviolate principles result from this decision:
1. In this state, all statutory references to "child" include unborn children, whether gametes in a laboratory or in a uterus.
2. If all human beings are endowed with life by the creator, and they all bear God's image, then that must be true of each of the two elements that physically create human life, whether in the uterus or the Petri dish. Each bear's God’s image, i,e., the female gamete bears god’s image, as does the male gamete, and we are required by our federal Constitution’s 14th amendment to provide equal protection to both.
Once those principles are established, the conclusion of this case becomes obvious:
The trial record shows that the 24-yr-old defendant was observed watching a television show that obviously aroused his erotic impulses. The defendant does not deny what happened next: He masturbated into a tissue that he ultimately flushed down the toilet. His semen was every bit as important to the creation of God's image as the female egg. His gametes included living cells, observable under a microscope swimming about. Each of the destroyed gametes included a full copy of a set of chromosomes, that, when united with a female set of chromosomes, whether in utero or in a laboratory test tube) would have dictated the sex, skin color, eye color, and thousands of the characteristics that make up God’s image. This defendant’s semen was a key ingredient to that image, and was every bit of a determinant of the characteristics of a resulting fertilized egg as was the female gamete. Accordingly it follows, that the destruction of defendant’s semen was as violative of God's will as the destruction of a fertilized or unfertilized female gamete.
Conclusion:
This court sees neither logical nor religious distinction between the role of a male gamete or a female gamage, either before or after they come in contact with one another, or whether the contact occurs in a uterus or a test tube.
The defendant is to be held without bail, and the trial judge is to set a date for sentencing.
Thomas, J, concurring:
The Issue of contraception was not directly involved in the facts of this case, and therefore the court did not deal with it in its opinion. But this court has made eminently plain that it ''wants to be certain there is no confusion about the extent of our holdings in this case.” and I respectfully submit that our holding today that wilful destruction of a male (or female) gamete violates the laws of the state of Texas has an undeniable effect on virtually every form of contraception as well as on numerous forms of sexual activity.
I suggest Dobbs has cleared the way for each state to make its own rules on this subject matter.
Forewarned is forearmed.
A bientot!
........................................
There is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you would like to receive a notice of each new posting, please fill out the form at <"http://eepurl.com/gf7fS9">.