Issue to watch: personhood for embryos
The Chicago Tribune reports that anti-abortion activists in six states are pushing for ballot referendums that would grant "personhood" and constitutional rights to embryos. The head of Georgia Right to Life tells the Tribune the goal is to introduce such initiatives in as many as 30 states during the next few years.
A companion piece to the article includes a number of questions from bioethicists, including AMBI's Linda MacDonald Glenn (who's been following this issue on the Women's Bioethics Blog.) From that piece:
"You could have people policing women's behavior during pregnancy to be sure they don't smoke or drink or do anything that could possibly harm the fetus," says Lori Andrews, director of the Institute for Science, Law and Technology at Chicago-Kent College of Law.
Doctors might hesitate to treat pregnant women for conditions such as diabetes or depression because the treatments could "impact embryos in an unknown way and expose [physicians] to potential liability," Andrews suggests.
"What about an ectopic pregnancy" where the embryo is implanted in a woman's fallopian tube, Glenn asks. "Do you have an obligation to try and save the embryo -- because it's a person -- even though such pregnancies aren't viable?"
And what about embryos frozen in fertility clinics around the country? Could they claim a right to gestation in a woman's body because that's what they need to grow and develop, asks Dr. John Lantos, a pediatrics professor at the University of Chicago and John B. Francis bioethics chair at the Center for Practical Bioethics in Kansas City.
-Greg Dahlmann
(thanks to Jim Fossett for the article pointer)
Earlier on blog.bioethics.net:
+ Frozen embryos get some colorful representation in court
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
My theory about these ballot amendment things are that they know there's no chance of them passing, but the whole point is just to motivate people to come to the polls who'd likely vote for their candidate. It's a great strategy, one which the Democrats fail to use as effectively.
- by Mr. Gunn on Dec 6, 2007 at 4:42 PM | link
Texas has already done this through our Penal Code, with explicit protection for the human individual from fertilization to natural death. There are exceptions for the actions of the mother and for legal medical procedures.
3 men have been convicted of capital murder under our 2003 Prenatal Protection Act. There are charges pending in at least one more case. All were abusive, the father, and intended to kill the child(ren).
One killed twins at 5 months gestation but not the mother, the other two killed mother and child.
One man received the death penalty for killing a teenaged girl he'd gotten pregnant.
Last month, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled in favor of the conviction of a man who killed one of two women he was sleeping with after the first told him she was pregnant. He told his second girlfriend that he would take care of the pregnancy of the first, and shot the first woman 3 times with a shotgun, once in the face.
As for "monitoring the actions of women:" a couple of county District Attorneys have tried to turn the law into an excuse to lock up mothers (similar to the cases in South Carolina a few years ago). One lawyer made a speech to a group of lawyers that the Act could be coordinated with our State's Consent Laws to charge doctors with capital crimes. The State Attorney General has given an official statement on the intent of the Legislature that exempts mothers and doctors.
The handling of an ectopic pregnancy is well established under the doctrine of self-defense.
- by Beverly Nuckols on Dec 7, 2007 at 3:01 AM | link
"You could have people policing women's behavior during pregnancy to be sure they don't smoke or drink or do anything that could possibly harm the fetus," says Lori Andrews....
Unlikely. It's well known that little children don't need to be around cigarette smoke, esp. those with asthma and so forth, but no one is suggesting removing children of smokers from the home.
- by Laura(southernxyl) on Dec 8, 2007 at 11:46 AM | link