Here's the gist of it: Augusta Roman tried for several years to have a child before resorting to fertility treatments. The day before the embryos were to be implanted, her husband, Randy, told her he wanted to wait until they had resolved their problems. After six months of counseling, they divorced.

The dispute escalated as the fertility lab consent form clearly stated that in the event of divorce, the embryos would not be implanted and would be discarded. Augusta sued and was granted control of the embryos in the Trial Court but her husband appealed the case; the Appeals Court unanimously reversed the lower court. Augusta then appealed to the Texas Supreme Court which recently refused to hear the appeal, thus upholding the Appellate Court's decision.

The case raises a moral and legal dilemma for August, 45, who regards the embryos as her unborn children. She said she would sign away any support responsibility for the divorced husband. Her attorney attempted to distinguish this consent form from an enforceable contract.

While I commiserate with Augusta's sincere desire to become a mother, it would be bad public policy to ignore the clear meaning of the consent form. In fact, the form had an option, if chosen by both parties, for releasing the embryos to either spouse. But neither made that choice and instead, checked the option to discard the embryos.

Andy didn't want a child after the divorce and even though Texas law protects anonymous sperm donors from child support, this is a different case. There is legal precedent for sperm donors to be liable for support. Family courts could award financial support despite the waiver by the wife.

Judges are obligated to notify parties of the termination of coverage when they issue a divorce settlement. They're authorized to grant a 30-day continuance in the divorce proceedings, so parties have an opportunity to obtain their own health policy.

But we shouldn't jump for joy at this development because it's civil and decent to notify your former spouse that he/she will no longer be insured. New York hasn't gone half as far as the New Hampshire requirement that employers must continue the coverage of the divorced spouse for up to three years unless they remarry.

New York is only preventing exes from being blindsided. My question is this: Is 30 days sufficient to shop around the maze of complicated health plans? Probably not. With 46 million Americans uninsured, we certainly don't want to add to that number. It may be difficult for divorced women to secure individual health insurance plans if they have pre-existing health conditions.

In New York, a spouse is eligible for COBRA if they become divorced but they will have to pick up the actual costs, plus a small additional percentage to obtain up to 36-months of coverage.

One day society will recognize that health care is a universal need and right. While the notice of loss of insurance is a benevolent idea, New York should go further and join New Hamphire in providing extended group insurance coverage under the employer's plan following a divorce.