Not really good news for the University. And not so much good news for anyone else as it is news about the reversal of earlier bad news.
From the Orange County Register:
"Eight families who say their eggs were stolen by a UC Irvine fertility clinic may continue pursuing damages from the University of California, a state appeals court said, overturning a 2006 ruling that the lawsuits weren't filed in time."
As noted previously, the University had been arguing that the statue of limitations had expired on this case, in which, as above, a UC Irvine fertility clinic had allegedly stolen eggs from women who had come for fertility treatments. Why did the court rule that the statute had not yet expired?
"A three-judge panel unanimously agreed on Wednesday, saying the statute of limitations is not binding if the defendant [the University of California, in this case] has fraudulently concealed information.
'As aptly noted by some of the patients, their attempts to investigate the matter were thwarted by the Regents with incomplete medical records and reassuring phone calls,' the judges wrote."
Perhaps, a future step of actually finding out who and where their biological children are (discovery of which has similarly been "thwarted" by the Regents of the University of California) might someday become open to the families involved. For now, however, the ability to sue for damages for having their children (granted, in embryonic form, but
at least one embryo in question is approximately 20 embryos in question are now known to be a teenage child teenage children whom his their biological parents have never been able to contact) stolen from them is at least again open to these plaintiffs. God knows what the now-open legal discovery process will uncover.
And then there are the obvious questions: was it not enough for University of California personnel to steal people's embryonic children? Was it not enough for them to arrange for those embryonic children to be sold for research? Was it not enough for some of these embryonic children (presumably) to be microtomed into paper-thin sheets, each slice trapped forever under glass? Was it not enough for some of these embryonic children (presumably) to be boiled with digestive enzymes for DNA extraction? Do University personnel believe they must still separate the children who survived this University of California clinic from their biological parents, and vice versa?
Clearly, the answers are no, no, no, no, these things were not enough; and yes, they do so believe. That part is clear. The part that defies explanation, at this point, is "why?" What has happened, or continues to happen, to the survivors of this University of California clinic, that the Regents of the University of California are willing to "fraudulently conceal information" from the survivor's families?