All last week, we heard the (shady) story of how Nick Loeb had sued Sofia Vergara over the frozen embryos they had made while together and engaged. Nick and Sofia had a volatile off-and-on relationship for years, and they only called it quits for good last year. Sofia jumped into a new relationship (and engagement) with Joe Manganiello, and Nick seems a little butt-hurt about the whole thing. Anyway, Nick claims he’s super-pro-life, so much so that he wants to take custody of the remaining embryos and get his own gestational carrier so he can… raise his and Sofia’s children by himself? Something like that. This whole time, the lawsuit has been done through aliases, John and Jane Doe. Now Sofia has finally confirmed (through her lawyer) that Nick is suing her and she’s not trying to destroy the embryos anyway.
After allegations surfaced that Sofia Vergara wanted to destroy frozen embryos she created with ex-fiancé Nick Loeb, the actress is now setting the record straight.
“The claims made against Sofia Vergara by Nick Loeb are uncredible and hold no merit,” her attorney, Fred Silberberg, said in a statement to PEOPLE. “Vergara has never wanted to destroy her embryos.”
The agreement signed by Vergara and Loeb in November 2013 when the embryos were created states that “no unilateral action can be taken with regard to the embryos unless both parties consent.”
Furthermore, “Vergara has never suggested that she wished to have the embryos destroyed,” the statement continues. “She has always maintained that they be kept frozen, a fact of which Loeb and his counsel have always been aware, despite Loeb’s statements to the contrary.”
The statement concludes, “Vergara, who has happily moved on with her life, is content to leave the embryos frozen indefinitely as she has no desire to have children with her ex, which should be understandable given the circumstances.”
Vergara, 42, and Loeb, 39, split in May 2014. She has been engaged to actor Joe Manganiello since December 2014, and has spoken about potentially having children with him.
TMZ pointed out that Sofia is trying to thread a particularly difficult needle here – she doesn’t want to piss off the anti-choice people who believe that every fertilized egg is a sacred life that must to implanted and carried to term, no exceptions. A “source close to Sofia” tells TMZ that “there is no way this baby will be born. Sofia wants nothing to do with Nick and is about to marry Joe Manganiello. The problem … she doesn’t want to piss off a lot of her fan base, which believes life is created at inception.” So her official position is that no one will destroy the embryos and no one will have sole custody of the embryos. Which is probably the only real legal option out there. I mean, is there a court out there willing to give Nick Loeb sole custody of those embryos?
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Just looking at her ex makes my skin crawl. Makes me seriously question her taste in men.
Me too, what was she thinking?
I wonder if that will that appease the pro-life crowd? Are fertilized eggs staying frozen “indefinitely” any better than destroying them? Either way they will never make it past the stage that are at now. No snark- honestly asking.
Same here. No snark or judgement, I just really don’t see much difference between destroying them and not using them.
I really, really don’t understand the life begins at fertilization/conception mindset, but maybe if someone honestly believes an embryo is alive and human then by keeping it frozen it remains alive and human just by virtue of still existing. As opposed to destroying them, where the embryos are just gone.
I asked myself the very same, i rhink after a certain period they become unviable, but perhaps im incorrect. Its immensely sad regardless of who it is, that despite using aliases it has become public knowledge and that her legal counsel has felt it was warranted to make a pro-life statement to “appease” the lunatic fringe.
I’m pro choice myself, but the anti choice contingent is, on the planetary scale, hardly a “lunatic fringe.” They are in fact probably the majority. Sofia has a lot of international fans, and it’s hardly shocking she’d want to not shock them.
With current vitrification techniques, there’s no defined upper limit on how long frozen embryos can be stored and remain viable. There may be a practical upper limit, but we don’t know what that is.
I’d pay the doctor to trip on the power cord if I were her.
“Oops, our babies melted.”
I’m pro choice and do not believe that embryos are human beings, but I think this is a disgusting remark.
I thought it was funny.
I don’t think it was intended to be hurtful, but there is a point in there about wasting resources to keep some from being offended.
Yeah, I laughed too.
GNAT +10000 inappropriate and distasteful.
To each their own. I just think it was disrespectful, insensitive and gross. If it was not intended to be, I guess I’m misunderstanding. Melting babies just doesn’t strike me as funny.
Well, it’s not a melting baby, obviously, more a defrosted clump of cells at that point.
I agree that it’s not a human. It just grossed me out. I’m sorry if I was too harsh.
I can see how people who need IVF could possibly be offended, but I had a more slapstick-comedy situaton in mind, kinda like “Honey I shrunk the kids”, maybe “melting” made it seem like I was making fun of babies dieng, not intended.
No worries 😉
That’s because you can dish it out and can’t take it. If it was a comment you had made you’d be highly offended if someone said that to you. Then go on with a loooong rant about why you were offended. What do you do besides live on CB and start trouble with everyone you don’t agree with?
Why is it anymore disgusting than the cells you wash down the drain when you shower? How can you state that you don’t believe an embryo is a person (human and person mean different things btw, the embryo is most definitely human as are all your cells but not a person) yet then go on to state that it’s distasteful to talk about melting a baby? That’s utterly illogical.
Neonscream,
I get what you’re saying. If you read my response, I said I was sorry to have been harsh. Embryos are potential human beings. Or persons, as you correctly have it. The cells you wash down the drain are not. To talk about melting them is as a joke just makes me sad and repulsed, especially the words used “you melted our babies.” Maybe it’s not logical, but our reactions are not always logical, are they? You either get it or you don’t. That’s fine, too.
lol
I though it was funny and it would definitely cross my mind in doing that if I was in Sofia V’s situation.
She does not need to apologetically justify herself to the public in fear of the pro-life people criticizing her if she wants to destroy HER embryos. Sick and tired of people preaching shame and condemnation to women who choice to deal with their body/pregnancy and personal situations how they see fit. To each there own and all that people! Most pro-life people I met have this suborn views against abortion but they don’t seem to think or care long term about what kind of life those children might have after they are born.
I always wondered why the hardcore pro-life people never publicly ridicule and criticize Scientology for forcing their members into having forced abortions?
Bah, if pro-life people spent more time providing foster care, adopting, offering financial support and care for pregnant women they’d do a whole hell of a lot more good than waving graphic signs on the highway.
Add to that the fact the majority vote in ways that aims to cut welfare, support for poor and working class families, and any form of education other than beating a uterus with a bible I don’t seriously anything those people say anymore.
I thought the original comment was funny, and I could have written Amy’s response myself (though probably not as well). I have always felt that if you are anti-abortion rights, you should adopt “unwanted” children and be a staunch supporter of welfare and other programs that help low-income moms & families. Otherwise (in my opinion), you’re a hypocrite.
enya
I laughed and read it in her accent which was even funnier.
Everytime I read posts about this story I can picture Dolce and Gabbana smirking at each other while reading them.
If a court allowed this guy to use those embryos, that judge is as crazy and this creepy guy is. He’s obviously doing this with nothing more than malicious intents.
Question: In the event that a judge agrees rules in favour of Nick and he is allowed to use the embryos and goes on to have babies with a surrogate, is Sofia liable for child support?
I sure hope not. I read yesterday they both have to agree on anything to do with the embryos. He certainly is showing himself to be a total jerk.
I don’t think that would happen.
Honestly, I don’t even think the law has anticipated this. Another case of law hasn’t caught up with technology yet. It would go through endless appeals, and likely end up in front of SCOTUS, which would do everything in its power to decide the case on anything BUT a right to life issue. Total cluster.
The law has anticipated this. As someone who’s gone through IVF, I had to sign paperwork about what would happen to my embryos if my husband and I divorced, what would happen to them if I died, if my husband died, if we both died. I had to fill out paperwork about under what conditions I’d be okay having my embryos donated to research, etc., and letting me know that if the medical facility was bombed, there was a natural disaster, etc., my embryos could be harmed. The first IVF procedure occurred in the 70s, so this isn’t exactly a new treatment, especially not in 2015. I think there’s something bogus about this story and the Sherri Shepherd IVF story as well. Most of the public doesn’t know much about IVF and these stories fuel that ignorance. There’s something being left out of this story or some lies going on.
@NKN, I think what Izzy is getting at is there may not be any laws or case law to back up the contract you signed. Things like that work because presumably both sides would agree to the terms and never challenge them. It does get sticky when someone questions the legality of said contract after the fact over a disagreement and there is no laws governing the affair.
IKR? That’s where this is headed in my opinion.
I don’t think there is any way that he is going to be permitted to use them with a surrogate, unless Sofia approved that.
In my country, the rights of the children are absolutely unwaivable. They are the rights of the child, the parer(s) have no right t renounce to child support, so, in the case that the child gets older and wants to sue for a part of Sofia’s patrimony, s(he) would probably be able to win. Probably in the US something similar happens.
.
I was advocating for donation of the embryos on other threads, but I read somewhere that the laws in the US right now allow the children to research their ancestry when they are 18, so they maybe could sue their biological DNA donors and win some of their state or inheritance.
Ennis – I have never heard of this happening in the US. If my mom wanted to cut me out of her will, she can do so, and I wouldn’t be able to sue her for inheritance. That’s not really how the laws work here once you’re over 18.
But if someone is given up for adoption, say, and they are supported by their adoptive parents all of their life, surely the birth mother is not responsible for their support? Wouldn’t it be the same thing here? When the child becomes the legal child of one set of parents, I would think that the obligations of birth parents or embryo donors would be terminated. If not, any adopted child could sue their birth parents for support.
Something like that sounds like what happened when some part of Europe removed the rights to anonymous donations. Donations plummeted and the medical community was left struggling to fill the gap. I understand the rights and needs of a child but if everything is filled out legally and properly I don’t think I’d dismiss the rights of a donor either.
Both sides need to find compromise.
Where I live, adoption legislation says that when someone is adopted their natural parents cease to be their parents for all intents and purposes (including child support), BUT here, the baby wouldn’t necessarily be adopted. Nick is the real father, and Sophia would technically be the mother. I have no idea what our courts would do. In Kansas a man was ordered to pay child support for a child born via his sperm donation, but no doctor was involved. The court found that “do it yourself” sperm donation was different than when a doctor was involved with the insemination. The main point is that a private agreement cannot get you off the hook for child support, because the child’s best interests is paramount. Therefore, I suspect that in the US she would be on the hook for support.
I think that is all moot though, because I cannot imagine the court ever allowing the embryo to be implanted without permission of both parties. If they were in a very anti-choice state then I could see it happening though. Its a very interesting area of the law, because science has progressed faster than the legal system has (as usual).
There is no way he is going to win custody of the embryos. It isn’t possible. The man also has the ability to make other embryos with anyone else if he feels so strongly about being a father. His biological clock does not run out, so he’s out of gas in this argument. The embryos will languish in suspended animation, with them continuing to pay storage fees year after year, until one of them dies, and then the embryos will be destroyed or used for science, as per their contract. Move on.
Seems more like he is obsessed with her. Unless he is now sterile, why not just move on and make babies with someone else or buy someone’s eggs and do it on your own. Single fathers have done it before. This just seems odd and very creepy.
This is really fascinating. There must be other wealthy people in similar embryo situations waiting for the legal outcome of this. Obviously she’s got enough money to just indefinitely pay to store them in whatever facility they’re in. The anti-choice side of it is interesting as well. What would they even want in this situation? For her to donate the embryos to someone else?
What a mess
It’s a mess, but I don’t understand how he has any case. He willingly signed an agreement that is perfectly logical. Shouldn’t his lawsuit get dismissed or something?
Possibly there is some precedent because I believe a woman went to court to use frozen embryos made with her dead husband. She wanted to have his child after he was gone and obviously unable to give consent. Not the the situation at all.
I guess future storage contracts could be amended or revised to specify a single custodian?
Maybe they could donate them to a couple who has fertility problems? Everyone wins, I guess. Rich people most often have more money than brains.
That’s another option for sure and one that my husband and I are looking into for our remaining embryos. I know a couple of women who went through embryo adoption and they are wonderful and grateful for getting the chance to carry and raise a child.
But, wouldn’t it be strange to know that you had children being raised by another couple? I don’t mean that to be unkind or judgmental. I have no idea what I would do in that situation. Maybe the question is too personal. Please don’t feel you have to answer if you’re not comfortable.
GNAT-If you do go that route you have several options. You can donate and leave it at that and not have any information afterwords or you can get follow up info about whether or not a pregnancy resulted and if a live birth happened and on from there. It all depends on how much you want to know. Donating your embryos doesn’t automtically mean a child will result there can be miscarriage or stullbirth like any other pregnancy. I also don’t think it’s that much different from someone who may have put a child up for adoption and now have a family of their own. My SIL actually did that. As long as you believe that you are doing what’s in everyone’s best interest I don’t think its strange. I guess it also depends on the individual, I would actually be happy to know that I gave someone a change at having the family I have now.
Yes, I see. And the child would have a chance to live with two grateful and loving parents. So it’s unselfish, really, and very much like putting a child up for adoption. Thank you for explaining.
@GNAT, no problem thanks for being so nice about it. I’d rather people ask then assume, ya know.
That would be a wonderful idea, but in the case of someone high profile like Sofia what happens in the future? Would it be the same as adoption where a adoptee could seek out their birth parents?
I’m assuming so and that’s something that anyone who would donate would have to consider.
I was advocating for that, but enlighten me (Already posted this upthread):
If the child, when she gets older is able to look in the file and wants to sue her parents for child support or part of their state/inheritance… would she be able to? I bet Sofia is trying to cover all her bases here ad does not want surprises down the road.
I can’t imagine the child could sue when it reaches adulthood. I’m sure Vergara (and Loeb) and their lawyers would make sure they waive any kind of responsibility if they donated the embryos–similar to adoption or sperm donation.
@GNAT: My best friend sold her eggs in college a few times (she did it once for the money and the clinic called again because her profile was in high demand) and has never regretted it or really wondered what happened to any potential kids. She’s happy that couples who couldn’t have kids on their own are now parents, but doesn’t have a maternal bone in her body. She’s never given it much thought other than finding it amusing that there’s a bunch of mini hers running around.
@Scarlet
Yes, I can see now that it would be a very unselfish thing to do, and could change someone’s life in a wonderful way.
Before children can be adopted, the parental rights of the biological parents are legally terminated. At that point, their parental obligations are also terminated. I assume the same would be true in an embryo adoption. Adopted children don’t have multiple sets of parents in the legal sense, only their adoptive parents have legal rights and obligations to the child. So, children who are adopted as minors cannot go back and sue their biological parents for support when they turn 18 (nor will the adoptive parents get child support payments from the biological parent). If the biological parents die without a will, the child is not entitled to inherit from them (nor could they successfully challenge a will that omits them), no matter how old the child is. If the adoptive parents die without a will, the adopted child is treated as a biological child under the state inheritance law (although ability to successfully challenge a will that omits the child is still pretty limited if the child is over the age of 18).
He’s so creepy and I don’t believe for one second that his position has anything to do with believing these embryos are human beings who must be brought to term. If he felt that way he wouldn’t have allowed them to be created in the first place with a woman who does not share that belief.
He wants control and a permanent solution to remaining a part of her life. Possibly money too. If he wanted kids he could have found a willing woman to breed with, his options are massively narrowed now that everybody knows how crazy he is but there are still plenty of fellow nuts out there to choose from.
Absolutely. Control and/or money is what this guy is after.
I find this whole situation sad and strange. I have frozen embryos with my husband and before we even started IVF we had to sign a ton of paper work saying what would happen to them or who would get custody of them if certain events where to occur like divorce or separation. I find it strange that they didn’t have this worked out in their contracts or paperwork. Most IVF clinics look at eggs, sperm, and embryos as potential life and it’s not easy to just do whatever you want with them. My husband had to sign some papers and have them notarized just to have the clinic destroy his leftover sperm that they were storing since it’s considered potential life.
It sounds like there’s already a plan in place and that Nick is trying to break that contract. Otherwise he wouldn’t need to sue.
For some reason, I am ultra sensitive these days to people who avoid decision making by simply kicking the can down the road. It just irritates me to no end. (For the record, I’m not into hasty decisions, just not into indecision either).
Her response is kicking the can down the road. Leave them frozen for all eternity — or for other people to deal with years from now? On an issue so incredibly personal and on an issue that she and this bozo created for themselves/by themselves?
My opinion of her is less after reading this story. I don’t know what the answer is — but the correct action is to personally own it and to deal with it one way or the other.
I think the article said that their agreement states that no action can be taken either way unless both parties agree. I’m not sure she has much choice?
Yes, if I remember correctly, they both have to agree to what happens to the embryos. But now he’s saying he was coerced into taking that position so he’s taking it to court. I’m one of those people who believe he just wants power and/or money. I also think that if they disagreed as much as reported, maybe that should have been an indication that they had more to think about (as it relates to their beliefs) before going ahead with the IVF and all that came with that. Can you imagine the nightmare if they actually had a child?
I don’t think she has much of a choice in this situation. I believe eventually the embryos will be destroyed or deemed unviable after both parties die, possibly many decades from now. It sucks for her and it would really bother me to know that my the embryos with my douche ex were still there and that he wanted to use them someday, but that’s the position Sofia is in unless her douche ex agrees to destroy the embryos.
When you’re dealing with someone who is acting irrationally, sometimes the best solution is to wait, until emotions are less heightened and cooler heads can prevail. “Don’t just do something, stand there” has its place as well.
What? they can’t do anything unless they are in agreement.He wants to use embryos.She doesn’t want them used.They can’t be destroyed unless they both agree to that.So leave them where they are until one of them changes their mind.In all likelihood he will meet some twenty five year old and get her pregnant .
There is most likely already an agreement in place with the clinic that performed all the medical procedures. It would explain why Nick has to sue. How is it kicking the can down the road to abide by their original plan?
Didn’t one of these articles state these potential embryos are only viable for four or five years? It seems like a reasonable statement from SV to me.
So basically Nick made up this whole Sofia story?
Was it to put himself publicly in a pro-life position for whatever career move?
I think he and his lawyers know that there’s no way a judge would give him full custody of the eggs, so there must be some other motive for what he’s doing.
It’s disgusting that he decided to wage a political battle against her like this. Of course, as the more famous person, she has the upper-hand, publicity wise.
They both are supertrashy.
I wonder why she didn’t just freeze her eggs? Then she could have used them later with whomever. I didn’t have to worry about these kind of fertility issues thank goodness but that certainly would have prevented this.
Freezing eggs is not nearly as effective as freezing embryo’s. If the goal at the time they were together was to eventually have children then her freezing her eggs would have been ineffective so it likely would have failed.
Why did they start the whole thing before they were married? What was the big rush?
Because she’s over 40 and biology puts a much shorter time limit on women’s fertility than mens.
If a “clump of cells” are not “human”, then at what point are they? Who makes that distinction? Who makes that decision? My daughter gave birth to her twins at 22 weeks. Were they able to live? No. Did we hold them in our arms? For their first few and last breathes. I respectfully submit, that if a human being is the end result of “a clump of cells”, then that is, in fact, a human being. I cannot think otherwise.
He’s a douche.