UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Iowa Supreme Court to hear arguments in assisted-reproduction fraud case in a special evening session Feb. 11

by Rox Laird | February 6, 2025

Bert and Donna Millers’ desire to conceive children in the 1950s was realized with the assistance of Dr. John Randall, a physician and head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Iowa Hospitals, and Donna gave birth to two children via artificial insemination.

What they allegedly did not know was that Dr. Randall used his own sperm to inseminate Donna. The discovery was made 70 years later by two children of the Millers using Ancestry.com search results they allege were confirmed by DNA testing. The Millers’ children—Bert Jay Miller and his sister Nancy (Miller) Duffner—sued, claiming the State violated the Fraud in Assisted Reproduction Act (Iowa Code section 714I).

The question of whether that suit will move forward in Johnson County District Court is now on appeal before the Iowa Supreme Court, which will hear arguments in that case in a special evening session Feb. 11 to accommodate members of the public who are unable to attend daytime sessions of the Court. The 7 p.m. session will be held in the Judicial Branch Building at 111 Court Ave., and a public reception will follow with members of the Court sponsored by the Polk County Bar Association.

The question before the Iowa Supreme Court is whether the Fraud in Assisted Reproduction Act, enacted in 2022, applies retroactively or only prospectively. Miller and Duffner argue it applies retroactively; the State argues it applies only prospectively. Two companion cases—Stoughton v. State and Bright v. State—raising the same question will be submitted to the Court without oral argument.

The Fraud in Assisted Reproduction Act states in part that “A person shall not engage in a practice or act the person knows or reasonably should have known provides false information to a patient related to an assisted reproduction procedure or treatment including false information relating to [the identity] of a donor of human reproductive material used or provided for assisted reproduction ….”

The Act established criminal penalties for violations and it created a private right of action that permits plaintiffs to bring a civil cause of action if a child is born “as the result of being conceived through assisted reproduction” that violates the Act.

The district court dismissed the case on the State’s motion based on the court’s conclusion that the statute cannot be applied in this case because the Act does not specifically state that it applies retroactively. The district court cited Iowa Code section 4.5, which says a “statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation unless expressly made retroactive,” and the court said the Act “contains no express language indicating legislative intent for retrospective application.”

Miller and Duffner argue that despite the absence of the words “retrospective” or “retroactive” in the statute, the Legislature’s intent that it be applied retroactively is clear from language in the statute that claims brought under the Act are not subject to any statute of limitations, and that children of a parental victim of fertility fraud may bring a claim if their parent was “deceased or is otherwise unable to bring such cause of action.”

“A consequence of finding that the statute only has prospective application is that it renders it potentially toothless for generations of victims of this type of conduct,” the appellants argue in a brief filed with the Court.

The State, in response, argues the Act does not apply retrospectively because it does not expressly say so, citing the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Hedlund v. State, which said statutes are presumed to operate only prospectively. That “presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence, and embodies a legal doctrine centuries older than our Republic,” the State said in a brief filed with the Court.

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25