California rejects parental notification for minors' abortions

California voters have voted against a State Constitutional amendment to require doctors to notify parents when minor girls obtain an abortion.

From the San Francisco Gate:

Proposition 4 would alter the state constitution to prohibit a minor from obtaining an abortion until 48 hours after her doctor notified her parent, legal guardian or, in certain cases, a substitute adult. An exception would be made for medical emergencies and also the minor would be permitted to seek an order in court waiving notification.

It appears that the vote was 52% against and 47% to 48% in favor.

More on the vote from KTLA TV news:

Proposition 4, known officially as the Waiting Period and Parental Notification before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy Amendment and unofficially as Sarah's Law.

The proposition would add a section to Article 1 of the California Constitution to require doctors to inform the parent of guardian of a minor 48 hours before providing an abortion.

This proposition is similar to California's Proposition 73 92005) and California Proposition 86 (2006) both of which were rejected by the majority of voters; however it introduces significant changes to allowed exceptions.

The way it is now:

A pregnant minor (an unmarried girl under 18 years old) can get an abortion in California without telling her parents.

Washington State passes assisted suicide law

Washington has joined Oregon in legalizing "physician assisted death." From the Wall Street Journal blog post on the initiative:

A state measure known as Initiative 1000 passed by a margin of 59% to 41%, making it legal for doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of medication for patients with less than six months to live.

As we reported last week, the law is packed with provisions intended to limit the practice. Patients must make two separate requests, orally and in writing, more than two weeks apart; must be of sound mind and not suffering from depression; and must have their request approved by two separate doctors. Doctors are not allowed to administer the lethal dose.

Backers of the bill, including national right-to-die organizations and a former Democratic governor who has Parkinson’s, raised $4.9 million to support it. Opponents, including several Catholic organizations, raised $1.6 million to fund their fight, the Seattle Times reports.

In Oregon, the only other state with a similar law, some 341 patients have committed physician-assisted suicide in the 11 years the law has been in effect, the New York Times reported last week.

Upside down ethics

That last post definitely points out the mess of current bioethics: Autonomy as the first principle, before the more traditional "Heal when possible, but first do no harm."

Is the purpose of medicine to give the patient what he or she wants, or is it to save lives and restore or maintain health?

As I've noted (see my profile statement at the right of this post), "bioethics" is not strictly medical ethics. In fact, it does entail science, research, public policy and politics and public funding as well as, and sometimes more than, the ethics of medicine. The problems of limited funds - or the act of providing and/or limiting funds - from government resources along with political and philosophical divisions in our United States debates drives those debates more than the traditional weighing of physical health and risks to life and health.

Questions I'm asking these days:

Why include "ethics" in "bioethics," at all? Why not just skip to public policy and public health?

What sort of person practices anything - or even lives - without "integrity," if the conscience is over-ruled by outside forces?

On Conscience: Philosophical, not Scientific or Medical Debate

Some of you may have already seen this transcript from the September '08 President's Bioethics Council meeting. Three physicians gave testimony on September 12th, including Dr. Farr Curlin, Dr. Howard Brody, and (from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, although she says she's not there as an ACOG representative) Dr. Anne Drapkin Lyerly.

Council member Robert P. George has this to say about the debate (speaking specifically on conscience and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology's Ethics Statement on conscience and physicians, "The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine," )

The first thing to notice about the ACOG Committee report is that it is an exercise in moral philosophy. It proposes a definition of conscience, something that cannot be supplied by science or medicine. It then proposes to instruct its readers on, "...the limits of conscientious refusals describing how claims of conscience should be weighed in the context of other values critical to the ethical provision of health care."

Again, knowledge of these limits and values, as well as knowledge of what should count as the ethical provision of health care, are not and cannot possibly be the product of scientific inquiry for medicine as such. The proposed instruction offered here by those responsible for the ACOG Committee report represents a philosophical and ethical opinion — their philosophical and ethical opinion.

The report goes on to, "outline options for public policy," and propose, "recommendations that maximize accommodation of the individual's religious and moral beliefs while avoiding imposition of these beliefs on others or interfering with the safe, timely, and financially feasible access to reproductive health care that all women deserve."

Yet again notice that every concept in play here — the punitive balancing, the judgment as to what constitutes an imposition of personal beliefs on others, the view of what constitutes health care or reproductive health care, the judgment about what is deserved is philosophical, not scientific or, strictly speaking, medical.

To the extent that they are medical judgments even loosely speaking they reflect a concept of medicine informed and structured, shaped by philosophical and ethical judgments. Those responsible for the report purport to be speaking as physicians and medical professionals.

The special authority the report is supposed to have derives from their standing and expertise as physicians and medical professionals, yet at every point that matters, the judgments offered reflect their philosophical, ethical, and political judgments, not any expertise they have by virtue of their training and experience in science and medicine.

At every key point in the report their judgments are contestable and contested. Indeed they are contested by the very people on who consciences they seek to impose, the people whom they would, if their report were adopted and made binding, force into line with their philosophical and ethical judgments or drive out of their fields of medical practice. And they are contested, of course, by many others. And in each of these contests a resolution one way or the other cannot be determined by scientific methods, rather the debate is philosophical, ethical, or political.

Lay aside for the moment the question of whose philosophical judgments are right and whose are wrong. My point so far has only been that the report is laced and dependent upon at every turn philosophical judgments. I've not offered a critique of those judgments, although anyone who cares to can find plenty of criticisms in my work of those judgments. But lay that aside for now.

The key thing to see is that the issues in dispute are philosophical and can only be resolved by philosophical reflection and debate. They cannot be resolved by science or methods of scientific inquiry. The committee report reflects and promotes a particular moral view and vision and understandings of health and medicine shaped in every contested dimension and in every dimension relevant to the report's subject matter, namely the limits of conscientious refusal, by that moral view and vision.

The report, in other words, in its driving assumptions, reasoning, and conclusions is not morally neutral. Its analysis and recommendations for action do not proceed from a basis of moral neutrality. It represents a partisan position among the family of possible positions debated or adopted by people of reason and goodwill in the medical profession and beyond. Indeed, for me, the partisanship of the report is its most striking feature.

Its greatest irony is the report's concern for physicians' allegedly imposing their beliefs on patients by, for example, declining to perform or refer for abortions — or at least declining to perform abortions or provide other services in emergency situations and certainly to refer for these procedures. The assumption here, of course, is the philosophical one that deliberate feticide is morally acceptable and even a woman's right.

But lay that aside for now. Of course, the physician or the pharmacist who declines to dispense coerces no one, though I think that Prof. Brody and I would have a debate about that.

Interesting that both Dr. Lyerly and Dr. Brody refuse to discuss the ACOG statement.

A compelling look at the problem of contrasting world views is posed by Dr. Gilbert Meilander:

. . . the fascinating question you raised under your slide on professional integrity about a professional elevating the — in this case the patient's needs above his own interests, and then you said does one's own interest include one's personal integrity. But then you confused — and I think that's — it's like, you know, "Should I be prepared to go to hell in order to help somebody," a question which theologians have actually discussed.

But you gave the, to me, puzzling example of physicians who should be willing to risk their own lives in an epidemic, for instance, to do it, and then you said, you know, if you'd risk your life, why wouldn't you risk your integrity.

But I thought the reason for a physician being willing to risk his life in an epidemic was precisely that he didn't think staying alive was the most important thing, that there was something else that was morally more compelling and obligatory even than preserving his existence. And that would have something to do with the personal integrity that you seem willing to think may be — one should be willing to set aside in embracing what one thinks is evil.

How can anyone live well without integrity? Or, from the Christian philosopher, Paul, "What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?"

(Edited to add italics on that long quote.)

How not to promote organ donation

Julian Savulescu, the British ethicist who opined that religious doctors should shut up and perform, is back.

This time he's advocating the donation of organs from people who are not dead or dying, but who have "suffered such severe injury that they would be permanently unconscious, like Terry Schiavo, who would be allowed to die anyway by removal of their medical treatment."

Hat tip to BioEdge.com

American Society of Bioethics and Humanities Convention

I'm on my way to Cleveland, Ohio for "Future Tense," the Annual meeting of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities.

Tonight, there's a pre-conference symposium focusing on the novel, House of God. The book written by Dr. Stephen Bergman was a rite of passage when I was pre-med. It's now 35 years old, and (although I didn't read it until the mid-'80's) I'm a bit older, myself. I'm about half-way through the re-reading, now.

The rest of the week, I'll be attending - and possible blogging on - "Welcome and Plenary Session How to Stay Human in Medicine: The House of God, Mount Misery, and the Spirit of the Place," "Building Better Humans," " Advancing the Debate on Futility to a New
Level: Ethical, Legal, and Clinical Implications," "Future Directions for Public Health Emergency Planning: Broader Moral Perspectives," and last, but not least, "Limiting Rights for the Public Good: Balancing Public Safety and Civil Liberty in Response toTerrorism, Epidemics, and National Security," with "Organizer," Paul Root Wolpe, PhD and Jonathan Moreno, PhD. The former has served as the ethicist for both NASA and Planned Parenthood, and the last is on staff at the Progressive bioethics arm of the "Center for American Progress."

For some reason, there always seem to be several very interesting sessions going on at the same time. For instance, Saturday morning, I have to choose between "Professionalism in Bioethics and Medicine" or "Role of Government in Public Health."

Wish me luck. The weather here in South Texas is in the 80's in the daytime, while in Cleveland, the highs will be in the 40's and the 50's. Before I knew Cleveland would have the heat wave, I bought gloves and dug out the scarves. Since I don't own a real coat - I'm claustrophobic more than I'm "cold-natured" and who needs a heavy coat in San Antonio, anyway? - I'll be the extra-bulky one in layers of red and black.

Discussion on Abortion in Australia

A med student's blog, "Degranulated" posts his thoughts about the presence of anti-abortion protesters outside and inside his medical school. It seems that the Australian medical community is in the midst of a debate like ours on conscience rights, with new laws that impose a duty to refer and /or perform abortions on physicians.

Public policy and medical ethics should be taught in medical schools. With every bit of the objectivity, pluralism, and inclusiveness that the most radical pro-abort demands from the rest of us.

(after the same old "men don't have the right to object to abortion")

Secondly, the opponents argue that the bill does not adequately deal with doctors whom object to abortion on moral grounds. In medical school, we are taught that the patient has a right to be made aware of all their options, and if a doctor is unwilling to refer a patient for a ToP, they should refer the patient to a doctor who is willing to explain all possible options. In this way, the patient's autonomy can be fully exercised. The opponents of this Bill appear to not currently do this. So, do they believe paternalism or patient autonomy, or even womens' rights? Hmph. Isn't it good to see how times have changed.

If times have changed, Dame Warnocke's call for the rest of us to kill ourselves and others in the face of dementia is the sign of those times.

Here's what I wrote in my comment:

I'm maternalistic, matronizing occasionally. And you sound/read as though you haven't had many conversations about the subject of abortion.

You should inform yourself, as the same rules apply to euthanasia, "assisted death," the death penalty, and our upcoming debates on genetic manipulation of future generations.

I'm sure that you understand the difference between the embryo or fetus and a body part or end stage cell line. There's no doubt that what we are discussing is a human being.

The nature of this individual human being is underscored by in vitro fertilization. Just as a neonate may be cared for by other people, that embryo in the lab can be nurtured by others and even adopted for implantation into a woman other than his or her biological oocyte- mother. What we do to that embryo affects the later toddler and adult, and even his or her own children.

Once the individual human being is acknowledged, we have to discuss whether or not to afford him or her the protection from intentional killing by others - what some call "personhood." This is the dangerous point of our conversation. How do we justify intentional, interventional and elective killing of that embryo or fetus in such a way that does not put other human beings that we acknowledge are "persons" at risk?

Autonomy should not be your first consideration in this deliberation. Instead non-maleficence, then beneficence and justice should be weighed with autonomy. Your own note about the decision to act or not act according to rules and laws by you future colleagues points out that these other values come into play when you are discussing the interaction of the mother, the unborn child, and the doctor and nurse, and the law.

George on "Obama and Infanticide"

"Obama chose to defend the widest possible scope for legal abortion by building a fence around it, even if that meant permitting a child who survives an abortion to be left to die without even being afforded basic comfort care."

Two of the greatest ethics minds today explain the controversy surrounding Senator Barack Obama's blatant misrepresentation of his pro-abortion and pro-infanticide legislative and public policy. Professor Robert B. George is joined by Yuval Levin at the Witherspoon Institute as he follows up on his earlier discussion about the por-abortion views of Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

During the last Presidential Candidate debate, Obama stated,

''There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.''

George and Levin respond:

A few years ago, after it became clear that some infants who were born alive in the course of an attempted induced abortion at Christ Hospital in Chicago and elsewhere were being left to die without even comfort care, Republicans and Democrats around the country united in an effort to make the practice illegal and declare that any child outside the womb, even if she was an abortion survivor whose prospects for long-term survival might be in doubt, was entitled to basic medical care. Even the most ardent advocates of the pro-choice position agreed that a child born alive, even after an attempted abortion, deserves humane treatment.

The tragic stories of infants being left to die moved legislators to act at both the state and federal levels. In Washington, D.C., consensus can be a rare commodity, and never more so than on the issue of abortion. But the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 was just such a rarity. The bill passed both houses of Congress without a single dissenting vote-it was 98-0 in the Senate-and numerous states then proceeded to enact similar measures. In Illinois, however, a series of efforts to pass ''Born-Alive'' legislation from 2001 to 2003 met with stiff resistance from legislators concerned the measure would constrain the right to abortion in the state. Prominent among these opponents, and the only one to actually speak in opposition to the bill when it was debated in 2002, was state Senator Barack Obama.

Obama's case against the bill did not revolve around existing state law, as he seemed to suggest last night. The law Obama referred to in the debate was the Illinois abortion statute enacted in 1975. But at the time of the debate about the Born Alive Act, the Illinois Attorney General had publicly stated that he could not prosecute incidents such as those reported by nurses at Christ Hospital in Chicago and elsewhere (including a baby left to die in a soiled linen closet) because the 1975 law was inadequate.

"The motivation is abortion"

“The motivation is abortion,” says R. Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. “If the Supreme Court allows states to declare embryos as personhood, you would be in a position to say immediately that all abortions have to stop.”

LifeEthics covered this story a few days ago, but this quote deserves a second look - and repeating for the record.

The comment by (Robin) Alta Charo in the LA Times explains the opposition of "Resolve," the National Infertility Association, to Colorado's proposed State Constitutional Amendment 48. That Amendment reads,

“The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include any human from the time of fertilization.”

Here's an article on a rally in Colorado opposing the Amendment, led by Resolve.

The "foes" of the amendment are claiming that it would criminalize "several forms of contraception" and in vitro fertilization. However, I believe that IVF could be carried out in a manner that respects each individual begun that way, if each is treated as a human being deserving of life.

Surfing is brain exercise (buy your parents a computer)

Surfing the Internet stimulates middle-aged and elderly brains more than reading a book. In fact, the more you surf, the more stimulation of blood flow to the brain.

At left, a functional Magnetic Resonance Image (fMRI) of the brain while reading a book and at right, the brain while surfing the web. The red areas indicate increased blood flow.


From the press release at UCLA :

For the study, the UCLA team worked with 24 neurologically normal research volunteers between the ages of 55 and 76. Half of the study participants had experience searching the Internet, while the other half had no experience. Age, educational level and gender were similar between the two groups.

Study participants performed Web searches and book-reading tasks while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans, which recorded the subtle brain-circuitry changes experienced during these activities. This type of scan tracks the intensity of cell responses in the brain by measuring the level of cerebral blood flow during cognitive tasks.

All study participants showed significant brain activity during the book-reading task, demonstrating use of the regions controlling language, reading, memory and visual abilities, which are located in the temporal, parietal, occipital and other areas of the brain.

Internet searches revealed a major difference between the two groups. While all participants demonstrated the same brain activity that was seen during the book-reading task, the Web-savvy group also registered activity in the frontal, temporal and cingulate areas of the brain, which control decision-making and complex reasoning.

"Our most striking finding was that Internet searching appears to engage a greater extent of neural circuitry that is not activated during reading — but only in those with prior Internet experience," said Small, who is also the director of UCLA's Memory and Aging Research Center.

In fact, researchers found that during Web searching, volunteers with prior experience registered a twofold increase in brain activation when compared with those with little Internet experience.

The research is to be published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. Additional coverage at the BBC and the UK's Daily Mail. Thanks to blog.bioethics.net for first alerting me to this study.

(Edited at 6 AM for citations and to add image.)

Robert P. George on "Obama's Abortion Extremism"

Professor Robert B. George has published a review of Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama's abortion views and advocacy.

The information on the Freedom of Choice Act goes beyond politics to the heart of all pro-life advocacy and would more than likely offend even abortion "moderates."

But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that ''the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act'' (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed ''fundamental right'' to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, ''a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons.'' In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would ''sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.''

In vitro fertilization and the beginning of life

The Los Angeles Times (a one time free registration may be required) finally notices that couples who initiate in vitro fertilization are "finding themselves ensnared in a debate about when life begins."

The proposed Colorado amendment states, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human from the time of fertilization." If it is passed, the courts would have to interpret the meaning of those words, says Kristi Burton, sponsor of the initiative and founder of Colorado for Equal Rights, which focuses on the rights of unborn children. The goal of the amendment, says Burton, a college student, "is to respect and protect all life."

Fertility advocates are skeptical that "personhood laws" wouldn't limit their choices for reproductive healthcare. In August, Resolve released a statement opposing the Colorado amendment.

"The motivation is abortion," says R. Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. "If the Supreme Court allows states to declare embryos as personhood, you would be in a position to say immediately that all abortions have to stop."

The reproductive rights of infertile women may not be the target, says Dr. William Schlaff, director of reproductive endocrinology at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, "but the implications are massive depending on how this law would be used if adopted."

For instance, what happens to embryos determined to be afflicted with serious genetic diseases? "What do you do with that embryo then?" Schlaff asks.

Says Burton of the initiative's possible ramifications: "All those things would have to be dealt with later on. . . . We don't see it as preventing infertility treatment."

As for the Rathans, over the course of several weeks, the couple ruled out discarding the embryos. They discussed donating them to research but heard that option was a logistical nightmare. They pondered giving the embryos to another infertile couple.

"Before I became pregnant, I thought the decision would be easier for me," Gina Rathan says. "But when it actually happened, I realized these are three potential lives."

Finally, the couple paid for three more years of cryopreservation.

Healthcare lottery

When you buy a lottery ticket, do you choose the cash option with its immediate payout of half the winnings or do you choose the payment of the full amount, doled out over 20 years?

I've found this question to be a good way to help other people understand the difference between conservativism and those who think that someone else can take care of them or the "totalitarian mamas" who believe that they can take better care of us than we could ourselves and for our own good. (Of course, some Conservatives tell me don't gamble, so they never buy lottery tickets.)

It's amazing how many people tell me that they always buy the "cash option." Some say they worry that their families wouldn't get anything if they die before the 20 years is up. Some tell me that they believe they can manage and invest the money to earn more than they would if they wait out the smaller payments. A few tell me that they would rather not have all the money at one time, preferring the guaranteed income over the years or fearing blowing the money.

The latter group never understands why I suggest that their health insurance should be something that they own and control, rather than something doled out by government and their employers.

A "right" is something that we each have without conditions and which we can call on society and government to enforce or punish if someone infringes that right. The right to life is actually the right not to be killed. We expect our fellow citizens to protect us through providing armies and law enforcement, a militia and by allowing self-defense. If another person infringes our right not to be killed, we expect society to punish him.

Last night, Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama stated that health care is a right. I strongly disagree.

"Health" and "health care" are difficult terms to define. Instead of people and their actions, health is threatened by disease, age and injury. If I'm not well, how will society protect my health - and who or what will be held responsible as I inevitably age? If I have a "right" to health care, then I want everything possible to maximize my health. Rights can't be rationed.

What we're really talking about is health care funding. Funding certainly can be rationed. Take a look at Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veteran's Administration.

These systems work fairly well most of the time. However, they rely on limiting the costs of health care. The limitations fail when demand for cutting edge, expensive treatments or emotional arguments override them. That's why Medicare won't pay for a tetanus shot after a dirty wound, but will pay for annual physicals, screening mammograms and prostate specific antigen tests, although there's no evidence that these prolong life.

Or why Oregon Health sends notes telling patients that they won't pay for cancer treatments, but they will pay for assisted suicide.

For more on this subject, here's another opinion.

Half the abortion rate

That's a quote from NARAL ("National Abortion Rights Action League" ), in a report on the effects of the Hyde Amendment (a pdf document). The Hyde Amendment restricts federal funding of abortions, including those for women who are eligible for prenatal care funding by Medicaid. NARAL urges us to examine the record of John McCain and Sarah Palin on abortion and "reproductive health." (The numbers are actually 18%-35% of women, according to this report on line at the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), the research and education arm of Planned Parenthood.)

Cutting the abortion rate in half is a good thing, and a benefit of the Hyde Amendment.

It will be interesting to watch the response to a National Review article, "Unholy Messaging," by Douglas Johnson, who does just that for Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, while pointing out the bias of the New York Times editors.

The focus of the article is three specific points denied in the editorial:

. . . (free one time registration)on September 21, titled “Right to Smear.” The editorial expressed the hope that the federal courts and the Federal Election Commission would prevent a group called The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., from disseminating an ad that, the Times said, “trashes the candidate’s nuanced position [on abortion]. It even employs an Obama-like voice pledging to make taxpayers pay for abortions, help minors conceal abortions from their parents, and legalize late-term abortions."

Mr. Johnson documents the truth, one by one, of what the NYT calls "these lies."

Is conscience solely a religious matter?

I've commented on the surprising accusation that protection of the consciences of physicians is anti-gay as well as anti-abortion by the pro-abortion faction. Now, the atheists are chiming in, claiming over and over that it's just the Christians who might refuse to perform abortions and object to calling abortion standard reproductive care.

"Pharyngula," is the blog of PZ Myers, who teaches biology at the Morris campus of the University of Michigan. Dr. Myers is one of the sources of the mocking of the Catholic communion and a "Red Letter," evangelical, atheist. He's also notorius for being banned from the local free showing of "Expelled, the Movie."

His blog post, "I don't want to be healed by Jesus, I want real medicine," advocates the view that "the religious" are the only people who would advocate for regulations protecting the jobs and licensure for people who conscientiously do not perform or refer for abortion.

If Roe Goes . . .

A Washington Post editorial (free registration required) is so outrageous in its appeal to the extreme that everyone who reads it should be offended.

If Roe Goes, Our State Will Be Worse Than You Think

By Linda Hirshman
Sunday, September 28, 2008

(First come the horror stories.)

In the 1980s, when abortion was severely limited in then-West Germany, border guards sometimes required German women returning from foreign trips to undergo vaginal examinations to make sure that they hadn't illegally terminated a pregnancy while they were abroad. According to news stories and other accounts, the guards would stop young women and ask them about drugs, then look for evidence of abortion, such as sanitary pads or nightgowns, in their cars, and eventually force them to undergo a medical examination -- as West German law empowered them to do.

. . . . Even Georgia, one of the two states involved in that case, allowed some abortions for the health of the mother.

(As did Texas. Two doctors were needed to sign off on an abortion.)

. . . their children would be deformed by the anti-morning-sickness drug thalidomide. . .

. . . religions weren't much engaged in politics. Today, the politics of abortion have changed. In addition to old laws that would spring back up should Roe be reversed, the nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute

(The Guttmacher Institute is the education and research arm of Planned Parenthood, focused on advocacy of abortion. Does it really matter whether or not the Institute is partisan?)

. . . lists four states -- Louisiana, Missisippi, North and South Dakota -- as having trigger laws explicitly aimed at making abortion criminal upon Roe' s demise, and seven others that have committed to acting to the extent that the court may allow.

(The criminal penalties are restricted to the person who performs the abortion.)

. . .The difference today is that some states with criminal abortion laws will almost certainly also forbid their residents to cross state lines to obtain an abortion. Missouri already allows civil litigation against anyone who helps a minor cross state lines to get an abortion without parental consent. Congress was well along to passing a law making it criminal to take a minor from a state requiring parental consent when the Democrats won in 2006 and stopped it.

(How many of us believe that there should not be a penalty for a sexual predator or the mother of our daughter's boyfriend if they take our daughters out of State for a surgical procedure without our permission or knowledge?

In any case, we have a precedent of sorts. 70% of Texas voters passed a State Constitutional Amendment to specifically forbid same sex marriage or civil unions. However, no one attempts to prevent anyone, including gays and lesbians, from traveling to California for the weekend. We won't allow for divorces or division of property in our courts and probably wouldn't allow a woman to sue for malpractice in our courts for an illegal procedure.)

It's easy to imagine the anti-abortion states pushing the envelope with once improbably restrictive laws, such as one requiring clinics to be licensed by the state and prohibiting women from getting abortions in unlicensed clinics, either in- or out-of-state.

(And how is it wrong to require that clinics are licensed?)

. . . How would state laws forbidding pregnant women to leave be enforced? The Hope Clinic in Granite City, Ill., is just 10 minutes from the Missouri border. Police from the prohibiting state can just take the license plates of local vehicles at the abortion clinics across the state lines and arrest the women when they re-enter the state. Or a traffic stop can produce a search. Tips from pharmacy workers, disapproving parents or disappointed boyfriends can alert the police to arrest the pregnant woman for intent to seek an abortion out of state. The state law may allow interested parties to seek injunctions to stop her from leaving.

(Here we are brought back to the fear that State police will not only forcibly examine women who cross the State lines, but that they will stalk all women who leave the State. First, I don't know how any State could afford all those wages, extra patrol cars or even the medical exam kits. Secondly, I can't imagine getting the law allowing such acts by law enforcement officers.

Please do write Ms. Hirshman at the address, below.)

linda@gettoworkmanifesto.com

Linda Hirshman, a lawyer and former professor of law and philosophy, is the author, most recently, of "Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World."

Okay, how does she feel about a woman working as Vice-President with a husband and 5 kids?

The demented should want to die or feel guilty

Baroness Mary Warnock led the British ethics committee (named after her) which couldn't quite decide the status of human embryos, but allowed destructive research on them. (See this LifeEthics essay on the Baroness' 2007 apologia concerning the deliberations of her committee.)

This year, the Baroness told British journalists that she believes that the demented are wasting the lives and resources of other people and that they should be euthanized. According to the Daily Mail, she now supports a "duty to die."

Lady Warnock, 84, was the head of the committee which during the 1980s opened the way for legal research on human embryos.

Influential in education as well as in medical ethics, she became an open supporter of euthanasia after her ill husband was helped to die by his doctor in 1995.

She told the Church of Scotland's magazine Life and Work: 'I've just written an article called A Duty to Die? for a Norwegian periodical. I wrote it really suggesting that there is nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so for the sake of others as well as yourself.'

She added: 'I am absolutely, fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there is a wider argument that if somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they are a burden to their family or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die.'

There's more of the same at the BBC News.

Ignore the fact that a large part of our economy depends on the jobs created by the need to take care of people who can't take care of themselves, at all ages.

Please note that the Baroness is worried about the "wishes" of people that she dismisses as incompetent. She's proposing that other people determine when and how those wishes are implemented.

However, she also suggests that society should actually decide to go down the slippery slope of pressuring people into feeling guilty enough that they chose euthanasia.

Induced Pluripotent stem cells without viruses

"The adenovirus will infect the cells but then will clear themselves from the cells. After a few cell divisions there are no traces of the virus in the cell," Hochedlinger said. "You can't tell the virus was ever there."

Science Magazine has published a report on induced Pluripotent (iPS) stem cells from liver cells (hepatacytes) that do not show any trace of the viruses initially used to cause the regression from adult cells to embryonic-like stem cells. The report, by Hochedlinger's group at Massachusetts Gener al Hospital and Harvard, is behind a pay-wall, but there is a review here at the Washington Post.

The simple explanation is that viruses are used to carry copies of genes that turn on proteins which cause the cells to divide and produce embryonic-like stem cells. Prior research used viruses that might become permanently inserted into the DNA of the cells. These viruses did not cause an infection in the culture because the viruses used were not good at causing themselves to be reproduced or inserting themselves into neighboring cells. However, because they inserted themselves into the DNA, there was a risk that the cells could become mutated or even cause tumors due to the abnormal DNA that resulted. In the case of Hochedlinger's cells, the adenovirus used does not insert into the DNA nearly as often, and when it does, the cell is able to repair the DNA in subsequent copies of the DNA as it reproduces the nucleus of the cell in order to divide to become two cells.

The cells are infected, they change because of the infection, but their granddaughters are able to get rid of the infection, while continuing to act like embryonic stem cells instead of grown up liver cells. The new "adeno-iPS" cells pass all the tests for "stemness."

Just think, no need for egg cells, no cloning, no destruction of embryos, and we're one step closer to healing within the body - to learning how to heal without transplant rejection or tumors due to the treatment. One day, we may be able to regenerate organs and tissues in place, as needed.

"iPS cells would have never been discovered without human embryonic stem cells"

In fact, Mr. Siegal, without the objection to cloning and embryonic stem cell research, iPS cells researchers might have taken a little longer to develop therapy that holds promise for regeneration and healing in the body, without transplants, intermediate cells and without costing the life of another human being.

Bernie Siegal, that lawyer who sued the Raelians for custody of their supposed cloned children and who lauded Hu Wu Suk for his own cloned children, is hosting one of his "World Stem Cell Summits" in Madison, Wisconsin next week. He is joined by Robin Alta Charo in promoting the Summit and reminding all of us that the push is not over for more clone-and-kill embryos and federal tax funded research depending on embryo creation and destruction. No matter how successful induced Pleuripotent Stem (iPS) cells are turning out to be.

Siegal founded the Genetics Policy Institute, with the help of the National Heritage Foundation Inc:

The GPI is funded by individuals, foundations, academic institutions and scientific societies, including the American Society For Cell Biology, the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research and the Huffington Foundation, according to Siegel.

R. Alta Charo (for some reason, she drops the "Robin") is a lawyer/bioethicist ( "for Hire")will deliver a keynote address at the Summit. She lobbies against physicians with consciences and in favor of abortion, cloning and embryo stem cell research. She's especially fond of the latter two, because (as she says in this audio copy of her lecture at the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities convention in 2006)she believes they will support her Progressive politics and belief that the research will support her personal belief that there is no Creator, so humans aren't so special, after all.

For a brief review of the history of "ethics for sale," look at this set of my posts.)

Camille Paglia: abortion is murder

Just, "Wow!" Ms. Paglia and I have many points of common ground. I've admired her honesty and linear logic, even though I most certainly disagree with some of her views that are (as she says in this column) informed by her atheism.

Read the whole essay, when you can. But, for the moment, let's look at the comments on the ethics of abortion.

Let's take the issue of abortion rights, of which I am a firm supporter. As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body. (Hence I favor the legalization of drugs, though I do not take them.) Nevertheless, I have criticized the way that abortion became the obsessive idée fixe of the post-1960s women's movement -- leading to feminists' McCarthyite tactics in pitting Anita Hill with her flimsy charges against conservative Clarence Thomas (admittedly not the most qualified candidate possible) during his nomination hearings for the Supreme Court. Similarly, Bill Clinton's support for abortion rights gave him a free pass among leading feminists for his serial exploitation of women -- an abusive pattern that would scream misogyny to any neutral observer.

But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, "Sexual Personae,") has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.

Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman's body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman's entrance into society and citizenship.

On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?

Thanks to Vox Populi for the tip.