Search

Abortion is now "banned" in fourteen US states. Fetal personhood—the notion that fetuses should be considered equal persons—has been invoked in many anti-abortion laws. Yet none of the states actually ban abortion completely. Some states allow exceptions in cases of rape or incest, and at the very least, every state so far permits abortion if the pregnancy threatens the life of the pregnant person. However, it is impossible to uphold the validity of these exceptions while maintaining a position of legal equality between fetuses and pregnant people. The authors argue that this logical inconsistency should persuade supporters of near-total abortion bans to abandon their position entirely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the latest trends in the US Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the right to artificial termination of pregnancy (abortion). It is stated that the right to abortion is not an integral part of the text of the US Constitution - it was not provided for in the original text, nor in the Bill of Rights, nor in subsequent amendments. However, the regulation of the right to abortion has been the subject of litigation and a number of decisions of the US Supreme Court. The issue is not only legal, but also political - in particular, the attitude to the regulation of the right to abortion, the question of whether it should be resolved at the federal level or at the level of individual states, what discretion should be given to the states, etc. This issue is a part of the debate, a public discussion, in almost every US election. Main decisions of the US Supreme Court in this area are reviewed, in particular Roe v. Wade, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA. It is concluded that the right to abortion in the United States is not enshrined in the Constitution, and this creates certain problems, since it allows some theorists and practitioners to appeal to the fact that the absence of such constitutional enshrinement indicates an unwillingness to grant this right the status of a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. It is argued that this argument should be disagreed with, since in the US legal tradition a significant number of rights are somehow derived from the text of the Constitution in judicial practice, and therefore the understanding of the right to abortion as such which is grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution is fully justified. It is pointed out that recent trends, in particular, the cases which have been heard or are pending in 2022-2024, indicate that the stability of legal regulation of the right to abortion in the United States has been shaken. Almost 50 years of Roe v. Wade precedent were not enough to convince some in the community that the right to abortion is truly firmly rooted in American history and tradition. By depriving it of constitutional protection, it allowed for considerable discretion to be given to the states, which could impose various types of regulation, up to and including a complete ban. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine further extended the «attack» on this right, which may also affect the interests of a significant number of women in the United States. To summarize, the recent trends are more political than legal, caused rather by ideological motives, as there were not enough convincing arguments to abandon the previous practice established by Roe v Wade. Enshrining the right to abortion at the level of the US Constitution (through an amendment) could help, but seems unrealistic given the polarization of society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

В даній статті розглянуто останні тенденції щодо права на штучне переривання вагітності (аборт) в практиці Верховного суду США. Вста­новлено, що саме право на аборт не є складо­вою тексту Конституції США - воно не було пе­редбаченоні в оригінальному тексті, ні в Біллі про права, ні в подальших поправках. Однак, регулювання права на аборт стало предметом судового розгляду та низки рішень Верховного Суду США. Питання є не лише правовим, але й політичним - зокрема, ставлення до регулюван­ня права на аборт, питання про те, чи воно по­винне бути вирішене на федеральному рівні, чи на рівні окремих Штатів, яку дискрецію надавати Штатам, тощо. Це питання є частиною дебатів, суспільної дискусії, практично на кожних вибо­рах до США. Зроблено огляд основних рішень Верховного суду США в цій сфері, зокрема), Roe v Wade, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA. Зроблено висновок, що право на аборт в США не є закріпленим на рівні Конституції, і це створює певні проблеми, оскільки дозволяє апелювати частині теоретиків та практиків, що відсутність такого конституційного закріплення свідчить про небажання надавати цьому праву статус основного права, захищеного Конститу­цією. Стверджується, що з таким аргументом варто не погодитись, оскільки в правовій тра­диції США значна кількість прав так чи інакше виводяться з тексту Конституції в судовій прак­тиці, і тому розуміння права на аборт як такого, яке знаходить своє підгрунтя в чотирнадцятій поправці до Конституції США, є цілком виправ­даним. Вказано, що останні тенденції, зокрема справи, які були розглянуті чи перебувають на розгляді в 2022-2024 роках свідчать про те, що стабільність правового регулювання щодо пра­ва на аборт в США похитнулась. Майже 50 років діючого прецеденту Roe v Wade не було достат- ньо для переконання частини спільноти в тому, що право на аборт справді міцно вкоренилось в американській історії та традиції. Позбавив­ши захищеності на конституційному рівні, це дозволило дати значну дискрецію Штатам, які можуть вводити різні види регулювання, аж до повної заборони. Food and Drug Administration v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine ще більше про­довжив «атаку» на це право, що також може за­чепити інтереси значної кількості жінок в США. Підсумвано, що останні тенденції мають більш політичне, ніж правове забарвлення, виклика­ні скоріше ідеологічними мотивами, оскільки не було наведене достатньо переконливих аргу­ментів, для того, щоб відмовитись від попере­дньої практики, зафіксованої Roe v Wade. За­кріплення ж права на аборт на рівні Конституції США (за допомогою поправки) могло б допомог­ти, однак виглядає малореальним, враховучи поляризованість суспільтва.

Welche Prinzipien gelten nun?

Which principles govern?

This article introduces the four manuscripts for this special issue of CS/CM. The order of the articles is the same as the introduction: Planned Parenthood Before and After Roe: Historical Lessons for the Current Fight, Relocating Reproductive Justice in Donor Sperm and Egg Capitalism, Let's Make the Womb Safe Again, and Everyday Practices, Unaffordable Rights, Radical Liberation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the intersection of religion, gender identity, and gender prejudice within the American context of religious conservatism and the overturning of Roe v Wade. Discussion considers the overturning as a dangerous move that negates the rights and religious liberties of women, with adverse implications also for the rainbow community. Notably, this legislative context depicts the power of conservative Christian ideology to sustain hierarchical gender norms anchored in a binary consciousness, which privileges and empowers men (typically white, elite, heterosexual men), while diminishing and disempowering women and gender-diverse persons as non-normative and subsidiary. Discussion further conveys that this male-centred/androcentric ideology continues the oppressive legacy of male-dominant, fundamentalist biblical interpretation — a mode of interpretation heavily criticised within contemporary mainstream biblical scholarship as flawed and grievous in its promotion of gender prejudice. Accordingly, the overturning of Roe v Wade is relevant to the Australian context, for the same androcentricity and legacy of biblically-justified gender prejudice underpins all Western cultures. That is, manifold people, knowingly or reflexively, religious or otherwise, adhere to this biased interpretation and prejudicial gender consciousness through entrenched psychosocial Western norms. Not least, much scholarship has stressed that the issue of gender bias deeply pervades the structures of Australia’s justice system. Ultimately, this paper emphasises that understanding androcentricity and the legacy of injurious androcentric biblical interpretation is necessary to the tasks of negotiating religious freedom for all persons and cultivating non-sexist social and legal structures that uphold the rights of multiple gender identities and subjectivities.

The Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson in June 2022 reversed precedent which had previously protected abortion prior to fetal viability as a universal right within the United States. This decision almost immediately led to abortion restrictions across 25 states. The resulting lack of access to abortion care for millions of pregnant people will have profound physical and mental health consequences, the full effects of which will not be realized for years to come. Approximately 1 in 5 women access abortions in the U.S. each year. These women are diverse and represent all American groups. The Supreme court decision, however, will affect populations that have and continue to be marginalized the most. Forcing pregnant individuals to carry unwanted pregnancies worsens health outcomes and mortality risk for both the perinatal individual and the offspring. The US has one of the highest maternal mortality rates and this rate is projected to increase with abortion bans. Abortion policies also interfere with appropriate medical care of pregnant people leading to less safe pregnancies for all. Beyond the physical morbidity, the psychological sequelae of carrying a forced pregnancy to term will lead to an even greater burden of maternal mental illness, exacerbating the already existing maternal mental health crisis. This perspective piece reviews the current evidence of abortion denial on women's mental health and care. Based on the current evidence, we discuss the clinical, educational, societal, research, and policy implications of the Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a film review of PLAN C (2023), directed by Tracy Droz Tragos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract June 24th, 2022, a day that will be etched in today and future generations’ textbooks as a historic day, the United States of America revoked the constitutional right to seek safe abortion care. Overturning Roe v Wade allowed the divided individual states to independently decide the legal parameters regarding abortion care. A decision that disproportionately effects the reproductive lives of women residing on the land of America. Given the systemic impacts of racism, neoliberalism and white supremacy, it is the Black, racialized and poor women who suffer terrible repercussions. In this commentary the authors begin by discussing the historical biopolitical perspective, colonial systems and longstanding impacts on racialized women’s bodies in America. The discussion transitions to the implications of geopolitics at play nationally and cascading impacts globally, focusing on humanitarian and emergency settings. Using a medical humanities perspective, authors highlight the collision between politics and reproductive health policy and its implications on social determinants of health, such as women’s education, employment, housing, racial and gender equity and wellbeing. Long standing advocates, community leaders and healers, leading scientists, birth attendants, doctors, nurses, allied health professionals/providers and humanitarian workers – and many others - are reminded and live the weight of the continuous battle of population control, stemming from the oppressive history of control and exploitation.

The Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson in June 2022 reversed precedent which had previously protected abortion prior to fetal viability as a universal right within the United States. This decision almost immediately led to abortion restrictions across 25 states. The resulting lack of access to abortion care for millions of pregnant people will have profound physical and mental health consequences, the full effects of which will not be realized for years to come. Approximately 1 in 5 women access abortions in the U.S. each year. These women are diverse and represent all American groups. The Supreme court decision, however, will affect populations that have and continue to be marginalized the most. Forcing pregnant individuals to carry unwanted pregnancies worsens health outcomes and mortality risk for both the perinatal individual and the offspring. The US has one of the highest maternal mortality rates and this rate is projected to increase with abortion bans. Abortion policies also interfere with appropriate medical care of pregnant people leading to less safe pregnancies for all. Beyond the physical morbidity, the psychological sequelae of carrying a forced pregnancy to term will lead to an even greater burden of maternal mental illness, exacerbating the already existing maternal mental health crisis. This perspective piece reviews the current evidence of abortion denial on women’s mental health and care. Based on the current evidence, we discuss the clinical, educational, societal, research, and policy implications of the Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court decision.

An introduction to articles published within the issue is presented, including one which examined the extent to which in-city agriculture could be the answer to increased corporatisation and food insecurity, and another which explored environmental issues by choosing anthropocentric view of settlement in favour of dynamic adaptive coevolution between human development and interacting natural processes.

Based on previous research that identified metadiscursive clarifiers as a means of discursive control and subversion, this study investigates the use of the devices in the abortion discourse of the U.S. Supreme court. It examines four sub-genres of judicial opinion (majority opinions, dissents, regular concurrences, and special concurrences) and their contribution to the development of this area of law. The quantitative analysis reveals that the separate opinions contained significantly more clarifying devices than the majority opinions. This represented a missed opportunity for majority writers to control positions asserted in separate opinions. More qualitatively oriented analysis shows the use of the devices as reflecting the nature of the sub-genres examined: regular concurrence writers used clarifiers to support the majority opinion; special concurrence and dissent writers both used clarifiers to attack the majority opinion. The analysis also reveals that clarifiers often reveal prescient tensions within the law; positions expressed with the use of the devices often became majority positions in subsequent cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The overturning of Roe v Wade reinvigorated the national debate on abortion. We used Twitter data to examine temporal, geographical and sentiment patterns in the public's reaction. Using the Twitter API for Academic Research, a random sample of publicly available tweets was collected from 1 May–15 July in 2021 and 2022. Tweets were filtered based on keywords relating to Roe v Wade and abortion (227,161 tweets in 2021 and 504,803 tweets in 2022). These tweets were tagged for sentiment, tracked by state, and indexed over time. Time plots reveal low levels of conversations on these topics until the leaked Supreme Court opinion in early May 2022. Unlike pro-choice tweets which declined, pro-life conversations continued with renewed interest throughout May and increased again following the official overturning of Roe v Wade. Conversations were less prevalent in some these states had abortion trigger laws (Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi). Collapsing across topic categories, 2022 tweets were more negative and less neutral and positive compared to 2021 tweets. In network analysis, tweets mentioning woman/women, supreme court, and abortion spread faster and reached to more Twitter users than those mentioning Roe Wade and Scotus. Twitter data can provide real-time insights into the experiences and perceptions of people across the United States, which can be used to inform healthcare policies and decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

June 24th, 2022, a day that will be etched in today and future generations' textbooks as a historic day, the United States of America revoked the constitutional right to seek safe abortion care. Overturning Roe v Wade allowed the divided individual states to independently decide the legal parameters regarding abortion care. A decision that disproportionately effects the reproductive lives of women residing on the land of America. Given the systemic impacts of racism, neoliberalism and white supremacy, it is the Black, racialized and poor women who suffer terrible repercussions. In this commentary the authors begin by discussing the historical biopolitical perspective, colonial systems and longstanding impacts on racialized women's bodies in America. The discussion transitions to the implications of geopolitics at play nationally and cascading impacts globally, focusing on humanitarian and emergency settings. Using a medical humanities perspective, authors highlight the collision between politics and reproductive health policy and its implications on social determinants of health, such as women's education, employment, housing, racial and gender equity and wellbeing. Long standing advocates, community leaders and healers, leading scientists, birth attendants, doctors, nurses, allied health professionals/providers and humanitarian workers – and many others - are reminded and live the weight of the continuous battle of population control, stemming from the oppressive history of control and exploitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to review the terminology introduced in the NSW Crimes Act relating to the loss of a Foetus which would now lead to the charge of a homicide offence ostensibly murder, manslaughter, dangerous driving occasioning death. Method: The paper examines various legal arguments which link to the laws related to legal interpretations pertaining to abortion. Consideration is given to the past and present rulings in the USA most notably the 1973 Roe v Wade case and the recent overruling of the case. In addition, several Australian court cases are cited and in a final analysis the decriminalisation of abortion in the Australian States is summarised. Implications: The paper provides a basic consideration of the potential implication for the amendment to the NSW Crimes Act in light of the continuing debate on abortion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Debates regarding reproductive rights have waxed and waned since the early twentieth century. The current front-and-center debate draws this discussion into tighter focus. Challenges to reproductive rights, changes in definitions of personhood and a pending decision regarding Roe v Wade could change the management and options regarding the disposition of frozen embryos. This commentary outlines how changes in abortion law and reproductive rights could potentially impact the options available to both patients and clinics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1972 and 2013, 100 leaders in obstetrics and gynecology wrote calls to action—in 1972 in anticipation of the Roe v Wade decision and in 2013 in concern over the increasing restrictions to abortion care. In this article, 900 professors support a call to action for reinstating federal protections for abortion. Over a year ago, the Supreme Court handed down the Dobbs decision, overturning nearly 50 years of precedent in retracting the constitutionally protected right to abortion. The medical community is already seeing the harms of this decision on the lives and health of our patients and on the ability to train upcoming physicians in this medically necessary evidence-based care. Further harms are anticipated, including negative effects on maternal mortality. The 900 professors of obstetrics and gynecology whose signatures appear at the conclusion of this article stand together in support of reproductive freedom, including the right to affordable, accessible, safe, and legal abortion care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As medical students consider residency training programs, access to comprehensive training in abortion care and the legal climate influencing abortion care provision are likely to affect their decision process., Objective: This study aimed to determine medical students' desire to stay in a state with an abortion ban for residency., Study Design: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to all medical students at a large allopathic medical school. Anonymous survey questions investigated the likelihood of seeking residency training in states with abortion restrictions and the likelihood of considering obstetrics and gynecology as a specialty. Qualitative responses were also captured., Results: The survey was distributed to 1424 students, and 473 responses yielded a 33.2% completion rate; 66.8% of students were less likely to pursue residency training in Indiana following a proposed abortion ban. Moreover, 70.0% of students were less likely to pursue residency in a state with abortion restrictions. Approximately half of respondents (52.2%) were less likely to pursue obstetrics and gynecology as a specialty after proposed abortion restrictions. Qualitative remarks encompassed 6 themes: comprehensive health care access, frustration with the political climate, impact on health care providers, relocation, advocacy, and personal beliefs and ethical considerations., Conclusion: Most medical students expressed decreased likelihood of remaining in Indiana or in states with abortion restrictions for residency training. The field of obstetrics and gynecology has been negatively affected, with medical students indicating lower likelihood to pursue obstetrics and gynecology. Regardless of specialty, the physician shortage may be exacerbated in states with abortion restrictions. The overturn of Roe v Wade has the potential for significant effects on medical student plans for residency training location, thereby shaping the future of the physician workforce., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

As technology and biological research continue to develop in the twenty-first century, it is necessary to address and further define the ethical considerations of embryonic research and the appropriate rights that may limit the extent of human research on zygotes, blastocysts, and fetal scientific advancement. Because the area of harvesting embryonic stem cells remains significantly undefined, both legally and morally, there are vastly different opinions between researchers and bioethicists, mainly because of ethical limitations, on the rights that should be granted to cells with the potential to develop into human beings and the consequences of neglecting significant scientific research or advancement. Current laws in the United States differ at the federal and state level, but there is no consistency in recognizing human embryos as humans, or affording them the same legal rights granted to a child; in fact, legal precedent actually detracts certain rights from developing embryos, favoring a human’s ability to destroy a potential human being (i.e. Roe v. Wade[i]) or the categorization of embryos as property (i.e. Davis v. Davis[ii], A.Z. v. B.Z.[iii], Marriage of Dahl[iv], or Reber v. Reiss[v]). These case law samples suggest the courts’ inability to reach a conclusion as to what is the status of an embryo. The debate is not only circumscribed to matters of research, but to fundamental controversial and intertwined issues of bioethics such as: when life begins, embryonic stem cells, fetal rights, abortion, et cetera. All these topics are contentious and when one topic arises, they begin to comingle. Embryonic stem cells are valuable to medical research and advancement because of the plasticity of the embryoblast – that is, the ability to adapt in response to changes in the environment.[vi] Compared to somatic stem cells, which have less plasticity and at this point have little ethical controversy, embryonic stem cells are much more versatile and able to develop into a broader range of potential cells.[vii] Therefore, despite somatic stem cells having qualities that allow it to develop into multiple variants of tissue cells, they are significantly limited compared to embryonic stem cells. Future development and research surrounding the abilities of somatic stem cells may change if current research is successful in attempting to improve the pluripotent potential of somatic cells. Cell potency is the cell’s ability to differentiate into various types of cells; the more variations in which a cell can differentiate, the greater the potency. Cell potency is a scale, where if a stem cell has the ability to differentiate into every type of cell, it is pluripotent, whereas if it can only differentiate into one type of cell, it is unipotent. The potential for cell potency is the most significant factor in utilization of stem cells and pluripotency is the primary factor embryonic stem cells are desired for medical research and advancement. In response to the legal ambiguities surrounding the morals and ethics of this new scientific technology, Robert P. George authored the 2005 article Acorns and Embryos, which states an imperative that zygotes and blastocysts be afforded rights comparable to those of humans. Because these cellular clusters may eventually develop into human beings, he finds it a necessity to develop a set of ethical standards that limit scientific research and establish restrictive guidelines to protect the rights of embryos, future human beings, that are congruent with generally accepted practices of human testing and research. George’s argument is developed on the grounds that embryos are humans, but in a different stage of life. Similar to how infants and adolescents are all humans, but in different stages of physical and mental development, so too are human embryos, but in the embryonic stage of development. To understand how George believes embryos should be afforded human rights, he voices the following opinion: specifically, those who support destruction of human embryos fail to understand that they support a blind injustice towards human beings who happen to be in the embryonic stage. According to George, this represents a form of ageism – that is, discrimination and the withholding rights based solely on age of an embryo’s state of maturation. George further argues that our society, “would not tolerate the killing of a retarded child, …a person suffering from brain cancer, [or]…the killing of infants,” implying that we should therefore not tolerate the blatant destruction of humans in the embryonic stage.[viii] However, as our society changes, we are in fact starting to become more accepting of these scenarios. Multiple states have passed “death with dignity” legislation allowing a variant of euthanasia for those suffering from a terminal illness[ix],[x],[xi],[xii],[xiii],[xiv],[xv],[xvi]; our society tolerates the killing of infants born with significant genetic birth defects by withholding pediatric nutrition and hydration[xvii],[xviii], and continues to stand behind the legalization of abortion. In closely related ethical similarities, our society also allows and supports in-vitro fertilization, where 97% of fertility clinics reported fertilizing more eggs than would be implanted in a given cycle and 84% of those clinics dispose of the extra embryos.[xix] Despite his push to increase limitations on research involving the creation of embryos with no differentiation in the zygote’s cellular composition, a morula comprising a spherical cell mass 3-4 days post fertilization, and blastocysts 4-5 days evolved from fertilization into embryo, George contends that individual gametes should not be afforded the same rights or treated the same as embryos. He argues that an individual gamete does not have the potential to develop into a human being on its own accord as there has yet to be a case of spontaneous human parthenogenesis. However, just as a sperm cannot develop into an embryo independently, an embryo cannot develop into a human independently either; in the context of both, they are in need of ‘another half’ to successfully develop: a sperm cannot develop into an embryo without an egg, and an embryo cannot mature into a human without a suitable environment to grow and develop. While the two are different in the context of being a haploid versus diploid cell – that is, one complete set of chromosomes such as a sperm or egg versus two complete sets of chromosomes represented by every cell in the body besides sex cells – the fact remains that neither is viable independently. George also asserts that individuals do not first exist without any rights and only later acquire certain features that qualify us to become the bearers of rights. However, every person passes through phases of development and these stages also bring changes in their rights. Further consistent with George’s viewpoint, just as a child has fewer rights than an adult (due to age and maturation), an embryo would certainly have fewer rights than a newborn infant. Since the moment of conception cannot be known with any sense of certainty, the beginning of the rights for an assemblage of cells can also not be certain. Therefore, an arbitrary timeframe needs to be established where rights would be conferred progressively to coincide with the development of the embryo, fetus, and infant. Acorns and Embryos was written to counter Michael Sandel and Paul McHugh’s perspectives written in their 2004 New England Journal of Medicine articles, Embryo Ethics – The Moral Logic of Stem-Cell Research and Zygote and “Clonote” – The Ethical use of Embryonic Stem Cells, respectively, in response to questions raised by the President’s Council on Bioethics regarding federal funding of embryonic stem cell therapies. Both Sandel and McHugh, to different extents, support the development and use of embryoblasts to further medical research. McHugh poses a distinction between the ethical considerations given to a blastocyst derived from natural production or in-vitro fertilization compared to one derived from somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) – dubbing it a ‘clonote.’ Contrary to most viewpoints from members of the President’s Council on Bioethics, McHugh believes there to be a distinct difference between the ethics of a zygote versus a clonote: a zygote (regardless of derivation from natural fertilization or IVF) being protected from harvesting embryoblasts from blastocysts for use in stem cell research and therapies, and a clonote being free for use in stem cell research or therapies. Stem cells are only controversial when they are embryonic – and thus potential human beings. There is no ethical opposition to stem cells derived from an umbilical cord, bone marrow, adipose tissue, etc.[xx] Thus, the solution to solving the ethical qualms of embryonic stem cells lies not within arguing the ethics surrounding embryonic stem cells, but instead defining the parameters about the beginning of life and associated fetal rights. McHugh emphasizes that, “if a source other than embryos can provide pluripotent stem cells – and harvesting them requires no killing – then this shadow vanishes.”[xxi] If we can define when human life begins, we can effectively define the rights associated with a human at that stage of development.[xxii] With the lack of clarity encompassing moral and ethical acceptability of beginning of life issues, it often seems easiest to establish standards through correlation to similar topics. Therefore, if congruency is defined between beginning and end of life ethics, and similar criteria established, it would allow ethicists and researchers to further formalize appropriate guidelines and regulations surrounding embryonic stem cell research and therapies. Current law, the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA),[xxiii] states that life ends at the irreversible cessation of organismic functioning; the two accepted death criteria are cardiorespiratory arrest and absence of brain stem function. Using these criteria for end of life, we can identify correlating biological markers to help determine the beginning of life. Three significantly distinct markers that correlate to accepted end of life definitions are: when the heart begins to beat, neuromaturation – functional development of the central nervous system – which can be separated into whole brain or higher brain ‘birth’, and fetal viability. Fetal viability is the measurement of a fetus that has reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus. This marker of fetal viability is a comparable marker to assist in defining the beginning of human life. Markers of neuromaturation and the appearance of lower and higher brain waves in fetal development parallel whole and higher brain death. The first appearance of brain waves from the brain stem appear at the six to eight-week mark and higher brain waves in the cerebral cortex appear after approximately 22-24 weeks of gestation. Available evidence suggests that the neocortex does not become a functional part of the neuraxis until at least mid-gestation, and it is not until then that the thalamus – the major gateway for sensory input to the cerebrum – makes its first afferent contacts with the neocortex.[xxiv] If life is unsustainable in an adult, it will inevitably result in one of the two criteria discussed earlier under the UDDA. Similarly, despite embryonic cardiac or neurological development and detectable biological markers, embryonic viability and fetal life may still be unsustainable even if these criteria are met. According to studies conducted by Breborowicz and Tyson, et al, results showed that only 20-35% of babies born at 23 weeks gestation survived, while 50-70% survived when born at 24-25 weeks.[xxv],[xxvi]Unfortunately, fetal viability is not limited to biological factors, but significantly linked to technological abilities and therefore exists only as a function of biomedical and technological capabilities. Consequently, fetal viability in developed countries is significantly different from that found in underdeveloped parts of the world. Furthermore, as technology and medical abilities develop and continue to improve, this may change premature fetal survival rates. While biological markers remain unchanged for embryonic development, it is hard to develop a set of ethical standards based on a specific stage of development associated with current technological limitations. This ability to show significant differentiation in fetal viability based on geographic location, economic status, and technological medical care available make fetal viability a difficult criterion to use. Robert George and those who agree with the theory that human life begins at conception believe that because there is one living cell with the potential to develop into a human being, the embryo should be protected and afforded the same rights as a human being after birth. However, in applying this logic to end of life, death would be defined when the last human cell has lysed. While the time for complete cellular death to occur is insignificant compared to the time associated with fetal development, studies have shown that 5% of leukocytes are still alive 70 hours after clinical death, skin cells can live for days, and neurological electrical activity can occur in brain dead patients as much as 168 hours after clinical onset.[xxvii],[xxviii],[xxix] It is imperative to keep the definition of beginning and end of life criteria congruent, otherwise it appears to be random ad hoc choices of when human life begins and ends. It is difficult to determine which side has a stronger argument when no basic standard exists for fetal rights. While it is difficult to agree with the notion that a human being begins existing at the precise moment of zygote formation, there should be limitations on research, clinical application, and non-reproductive use of embryos past a certain stage of development. Dr. McHugh suggests limiting blastocyst development not past the 14th day, although he does not cite specific reasons as to why he chose the 14-day mark as a limit when he discussed clonote development limitations. At the latest, one could conclude that development should be allowed until, at most, 22 weeks because it not only marks neuromaturation to higher brain function, but also because of current limitations of fetal viability. However, despite any support of embryonic development to 22 weeks for non-reproductive purposes and regardless of what maturation timeline is chosen, embryonic development should be limited only to that necessary for embryoblast harvesting. If limitations allowed embryonic development to 22 weeks, but successful research and embryoblasts could be harvested by the 14th day, there should be no support for further unnecessary embryonic development –hence, the pressing need for standards. Despite the significance and untapped potential of this research and clinical abilities, it is necessary to develop standards and limitations prior to authorization and potential federal funding of such research. While this work is rich in therapeutic promise, we cannot allow it to proceed before establishing a set of morals and ethics to guide the research. Therefore, practitioners and clinical ethicists should support a moratorium on further embryonic stem cell research until those within the community can agree on ethical limitations of new science. Even though this paper was not intended or designed to address the ethics of defining beginning or end of life criteria, it is crucial to understand its necessity and integration into other concepts, such as embryonic stem cells and embryonic rights, to help us adequately discuss the morals and ethics of surrounding concepts. By clarifying and correlating beginning of life biomarkers with those already established and accepted for end of life, we can begin to facilitate discussion about when life begins and the ethical and legal limits of medical research and practice. There is an ethical imperative to establish consistency and develop parameters to guide appropriate research and medical practice that is ethically acceptable. If ethical standards of embryonic rights and beginning of life remain undefined or debated, it will remain difficult to establish sufficient guidelines to regulate new scientific medical technology. As scientific capabilities increase and new research develops, it is compulsory to ensure discussion of ethical tolerability in a prompt manner to allow researchers the ability to understand and develop increased potential of new research. [i] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, (1973) [ii] Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 at 597, Tennessee (1992) [iii] A.Z. v. B.Z., 725 N.E.2d 1051, 1059, Massachusetts (2000) [iv] Marriage of Dahl, 194 P.3d 834, Oregon (2008) [v] Reber v. Reiss 38 FLR 1279, (2012) [vi] Hans R. Schöler. (2007). “The Potential of Stem Cells: An Inventory”. In Nikolaus Knoepffler; Dagmar Schipanski; Stefan Lorenz Sorgner. Human biotechnology as Social Challenge. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. P. 28. ISBN 978-0-7546-5755-2. [vii] Illmensee K, Mintz B. Totipotency and normal differentiation of single teratocarcinom cells cloned by injection into blastocysts. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1976;73:549–553. [viii] George, R.P., Lee, P. (2005). Acorns and Embryos. The New Atlantis, 90-100. [ix] ABX2-15 End of Life Option Act, California, (2015). [x] Proposition 106: End of Life Options Act, Colorado, (2016). [xi] DC ACT 21-577 Death with Dignity Act of 2016, District of Columbia, (2016). [xii] Baxter v Montana, Mont. Sup. Ct., 2009 MT 449, 354 Mont. 234, 224 P.3d 1211 (2009) [xiii] Ballot Measure 51: Death with Dignity Act. Oregon, (2008). [xiv] Gonzales v Oregon, (04-623) 546 U.S. 243 (2006) 368 F.3d 1118 [xv] Act No. 39. An act relating to patient choice and control at end of life. Vermont. (2013). [xvi] Ballot Initiative 1000: Death with Dignity Act. Washington. (2008). [xvii] Johnson, J., Mitchell, C. (2000). Responding to Parental Requests to Forego Pediatric Nutrition and Hydration. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 11(2), 128-135. [xviii] Barber v. Superior Court, 147 Cal.App.3d 1006 (1983) 195 Cal. Rptr. 484. [xix] Gurmankin, A.D., Sisti, D., & Caplan, A.L. (2004). Embryo disposal practices in IVF clinics in the United States. University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics. [xx] Lo, B., Parham, L. (2009). Ethical Issues in Stem Cell Research. Endocrine Reviews, 30(3), 204-213. [xxi] McHugh, P.R. (2004). Zygote and “Clonote” – The Ethical Use of Embryonic Stem Cells. The New England Journal of Medicine, 351(3), 209-211. [xxii] Sandel, M.J. (2004). Embryo Ethics – The Moral Logic of Stem-Cell Research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 351(3), 207-209. [xxiii] Uniform Determination of Death Act, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, (1981). [xxiv] Fowler, M.J. (1985). Neuromaturation and the Moral Status of Human Fetal Life. J Med Philos, 10(3). 237-252. [xxv] Breborowicz, G.H. (2001). Limits of fetal viability and its enhancement. Early Pregnancy, 5(1). 49-50. [xxvi] Tyson, J.E., et al. (2008). Intensive Care for Extreme Prematurity – Moving beyond Gestational Age. The New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 1672-1681. [xxvii] Can, I., et al. (2014). Distinctive thanatomicrobiome signatures found in the blood and internal organs of humans. Journal of Microbiological Methods, 106, 1-7. [xxviii] Bernat, J.L., et al. (2006). Report of a National Conference on Donation after Cardiac Death. American Journal of Transplantation, 6: 281–291. doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2005.01194.x. [xxix] Grigg, M.M., et al. (1987). Electroencephalographic Activity After Brain Death. Arch Neurol, 44

In Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt the Supreme Court of the United States passed down its most important decision on abortion for just under a decade. By a majority of 5-3, the Court ruled that two provisions in a Texas law regulating abortion on grounds of women's health were constitutionally invalid, placing a 'substantial obstacle' in the way of women seeking to exercise their right to abortion. This comment delineates the key ways in which the Court's application of the standard of constitutional review under Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) to the Texas provisions marks a landmark development for the protection of the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v Wade, not the least by making clear that state abortion regulations which cite 'women's health' justifications should not pass constitutional review where those justifications lack a credible factual basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs) overrules precedents established by Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey and allows states to individually regulate access to abortion care services. While many states have passed laws to protect access to abortion services since the ruling, the ruling has also triggered the enforcement of existing laws and the creation of new ones that ban or restrict abortion. In addition to denying patients the full spectrum of reproductive health care, one major concern in the medical community is how the ruling will undermine trust in the patient-clinician relationship by influencing perceptions of the privacy of patient health information., Objective: This study aimed to study the effect of recent abortion legislation on Twitter user engagement, sentiment, expressions of trust in clinicians, and privacy of health information., Methods: We scraped tweets containing keywords of interest between January 1, 2020, and October 17, 2022, to capture tweets posted before and after the leak of the Supreme Court decision. We then trained a Latent Dirichlet Allocation model to select tweets pertinent to the topic of interest and performed a sentiment analysis using Robustly Optimized Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers Pre-training Approach model and a causal impact time series analysis to examine engagement and sentiment. In addition, we used a Word2Vec model to study the terms of interest against a latent trust dimension to capture how expressions of trust for our terms of interest changed over time and used term frequency, inverse-document frequency to measure the volume of tweets before and after the decision with respect to the negative and positive sentiments that map to our terms of interest., Results: Our study revealed (1) a transient increase in the number of daily users by 576.86% (95% CI 545.34%-607.92%; P<.001), tweeting about abortion, health care, and privacy of health information postdecision leak; (2) a sustained and statistically significant decrease in the average daily sentiment on these topics by 19.81% (95% CI -22.98% to -16.59%; P=.001) postdecision leak; (3) a decrease in the association of the latent dimension of trust across most clinician-related and health information-related terms of interest; (4) an increased frequency of tweets with these clinician-related and health information-related terms and concomitant negative sentiment in the postdecision leak period., Conclusions: The study suggests that the Dobbs ruling has consequences for health systems and reproductive health care that extend beyond denying patients access to the full spectrum of reproductive health services. The finding of a decrease in the expression of trust in clinicians and health information-related terms provides evidence to support advocacy and initiatives that proactively address concerns of trust in health systems and services., (©Karl Swanson, Akshay Ravi, Sameh Saleh, Benjamin Weia, Elizabeth Pleasants, Simone Arvisais-Anhalt. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 12.05.2023.)

The Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson in June 2022 reversed precedent which had previously protected abortion prior to fetal viability as a universal right within the United States. This decision almost immediately led to abortion restrictions across 25 states. The resulting lack of access to abortion care for millions of pregnant people will have profound physical and mental health consequences, the full effects of which will not be realized for years to come. Approximately 1 in 5 women access abortions in the U.S. each year. These women are diverse and represent all American groups. The Supreme court decision, however, will affect populations that have and continue to be marginalized the most. Forcing pregnant individuals to carry unwanted pregnancies worsens health outcomes and mortality risk for both the perinatal individual and the offspring. The US has one of the highest maternal mortality rates and this rate is projected to increase with abortion bans. Abortion policies also interfere with appropriate medical care of pregnant people leading to less safe pregnancies for all. Beyond the physical morbidity, the psychological sequelae of carrying a forced pregnancy to term will lead to an even greater burden of maternal mental illness, exacerbating the already existing maternal mental health crisis. This perspective piece reviews the current evidence of abortion denial on women's mental health and care. Based on the current evidence, we discuss the clinical, educational, societal, research, and policy implications of the Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court decision., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Londoño Tobón, McNicholas, Clare, Ireland, Payne, Moore Simas, Scott, Becker and Byatt.)

Although not common, self-induced abortion continues to exist in the contemporary United States, where women are being criminalized for the practice. This paper analyzes the reasons that women have for inducing their own abortions given the existence of legal alternatives. It argues that changes in medical technologies and information technologies have made self-abortions safer and more accessible, while structural and cultural barriers have limited access to legal abortions. While some feminists and reproductive rights advocates have problematized the practice of self-aborting itself as dangerous and indicative of the deterioration of the rights guaranteed under Roe v Wade, this paper suggests that feminists must turn their attentions to changing the terms under which abortion is treated under the law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]