TcMedicine

Archive for May 12th, 2008

The New York Times on Sunday profiled Chinese public defense lawyers Li Jinsong and Li Jianqiang, who have differed on how to approach cases such as the defense of human rights advocate Chen Guangcheng (Kahn, New York Times, 2/25). Chen was arrested after attempting to file a lawsuit against the government for alleged human rights abuses associated with the enforcement of the country’s one-child-per-family policy. He recorded testimony from men and women in communities in and around China’s Linyi province who experienced forced abortions and sterilizations. In August 2006, he was sentenced by a court in Shandong to four years and three months in prison for allegedly “willfully damaging property” and “organizing a mob to disturb traffic.” An appeals court in Shandong in October 2006 ordered a retrial, but the Intermediate People’s Court in China’s Shandong Province in January rejected the appeal and upheld the sentence (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 1/16). After Chen was arrested, Li Jinsong and other human rights advocates launched a publicity campaign to put pressure on local officials to give Chen a fair trial and to alert national officials about what they and others said was “an embarrassing abuse of authority at the local level,” the Times reports. Li Jianqiang, who is more “combative” than Li Jinsong, was not personally involved in the case but said Li Jinsong made “stupid mistakes” that backed the local authorities into a corner and harmed Chen’s case. According to the Times, the lawyers’ debate over the case and other issues “intensified” after a trip to the U.S. in November 2006. Li Jianqiang on Nov. 27, 2006 — the same day as Chen’s second trial — posted a letter online that said, “In our one-party dictatorship, the law is little more than an ornament and the rights in the Constitution are laughable lies.” Li Jianqiang listed Li Jinsong’s name at the bottom of the letter. Supporters of Li Jinsong said the letter might have hurt Chen’s chances of winning the case. Although the attorneys differ, they are part of a “momentous struggle over the rule of law in China,” according to the Times. “Instrumental or not, [Li Jianqiang’s] letter shows how the rights defense movement is struggling to maintain a sense of purpose amid an intensifying police crackdown and a string of public defeats,” the Times reports (New York Times, 2/25).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Although it is “easy to hoot with derision” at the “awfully complicated positions” on abortion rights taken by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), the two possible Republican presidential candidates “make sense” when listened to “with a decent sympathy,” Ann Althouse, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin, writes in a New York Times opinion piece (Althouse, New York Times, 2/24). Giuliani, who supports abortion rights, in recent talks with conservative media outlets and voters in South Carolina said he would appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the Supreme Court. He in a recent interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News also said that a law (S 3) being reviewed by the Supreme Court that bans so-called “partial-birth abortion” should be upheld and that he supports parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortion with a judicial bypass provision. Since Romney first ran for U.S. Senate in 1994, he has acknowledged that his position on abortion has changed from “proudly” supporting abortion rights to saying that he would “like to see” Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that effectively barred state abortion bans, overturned. Romney in 2004 said that when he studied human embryonic stem cell research, he experienced an “awakening that led him to the conclusion that ‘the sanctity of life had been cheapened’ by the Roe decision” (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 2/13). Romney while governor “took an admirably limited view of executive power and acknowledged the independence of the legal system,” and Giuliani “respects the distinctive work of judges and the separate role of the state legislatures,” according to Althouse. “To represent what the country as a whole thinks, the president ought to take account of the deep beliefs Americans have about both reproductive freedom and the value of unborn life,” Althouse writes. She concludes that people should have “patience” in what Romney and Giuliani are saying but should not be “naive” because the next president will appoint judges who will bring “a version of humanity that will express something of the president’s cast of mind” (New York Times, 2/24).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

The following highlights recent news of state actions on abortion legislation.

• Alabama: The Committee on Public Health on Wednesday gave final approval to a proposal that sets standards for follow-up care and equipment maintenance at clinics that offer abortions, as well as increases the role of a clinic’s medical director, the Birmingham News reports. The committee also voted to request public comment on a proposal that would require abortion providers to receive special training to perform the procedure (Chandler, Birmingham News, 2/22). According to State Health Officer Don Williamson ,the Department of Public Health proposal would permit physicians to perform abortions only if they received special training from a qualified post-graduate program, performed abortions at a hospital and were approved by another doctor who met the standards but worked at a different clinic (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 2/20). The doctor qualification proposal could be acted on in a few months, the News reports (Birmingham News, 2/22).
  
  
• Mississippi: The House on Thursday voted 95-16 to pass a measure (SB 2391) that would ban abortions except in cases of rape or to save the life of the pregnant women if Roe v. Wade — the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that effectively barred state abortion bans — were overturned, the AP/Biloxi Sun Herald reports. The House by voice vote rejected an amendment to the legislation that would have allowed abortions in cases of incest. If Roe were overturned, anyone who performed an abortion violating the ban would be sentenced to one to 10 years in prison (Wagster Pettus, AP/Biloxi Sun Herald, 2/23). The measure, which condensed three abortion-related bills that passed the Senate earlier this month, also would require minors seeking abortion who do not have their parents’ consent to obtain permission from a judge to undergo the procedure. In addition, doctors would be required to give women seeking abortion a chance to listen to the fetus’ heartbeat and view a sonogram. The bill heads to the Senate, where the chamber could adopt the measure or work on compromise legislation with the House (Abdullah, Memphis Commercial Appeal, 2/22).
  
  
• South Dakota: The Senate State Affairs Committee on Wednesday voted 8-1 against a bill (HB 1293) that would ban abortions in the state except in cases of rape, incest or to save the live of the pregnant woman, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader reports (Myers, Sioux Falls Argus Leader, 2/22). The bill, which the House passed earlier this month by a 45-25 vote, would allow rape survivors to undergo abortions if they report the rape to authorities within 50 days. Physicians would be required to confirm the report with authorities, as well as to take blood from aborted fetuses and give that information to police for DNA testing. For incest survivors, a doctor would be required to obtain the woman’s consent to report the crime along with the identity of the alleged perpetrator before an abortion could be performed. Blood samples from fetuses also would have to be provided to police. Abortions could be performed until the 17th week of pregnancy in cases of incest or rape. The bill carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for performing illegal abortions. The measure also would allow a pregnant woman to undergo an abortion if her health could be seriously damaged by carrying the pregnancy to term. Under the bill, a doctor from another practice must agree that the woman’s health is in jeopardy before the abortion could be performed (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 2/20). Some supporters of the measure are trying to garner the 12 Senate votes necessary to move the bill out of committee and to the full Senate. The measure would go on the ballot in the 2008 general election if it passes the Legislature and is signed by Gov. Mike Rounds (R) (Sioux Falls Argus Leader, 2/22).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled against law enforcement authorities from Springboro, Ohio, and the FBI for detaining abortion-rights opponents for three hours after they protested in the city, the AP/Zanesville Times Recorder reports. The panel reversed an earlier ruling by a U.S. District Court in Dayton, Ohio, and sent the case back to the lower court for continued arguments. Members of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform allege that on June 10, 2002, officers violated their constitutional rights to free speech by detaining them for a prolonged period of time after the protesters drove trucks displaying photos of aborted fetuses through Springboro. The 6th Circuit Court panel’s ruling said that a reasonable jury could find that the officers were motivated to detain the protesters partially because the posters’ content and concern by at least one officer that the photographs should be kept out of the sight of children. The ruling also said the officers stopped the protesters because they were wearing body armor and Kevlar helmets, which caused concern that they might be involved in criminal activity. The initial investigation found no evidence to justify why the protesters were held for three hours, and a reasonable officer would have known that detaining the group because of their protests would violate their right to free speech, according to the ruling. Mark Harrington, executive director of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Midwest office, said, “We were discriminated against and harassed because of our pro-life views.” Attorney Mark Landes, who represents the Springboro officers, said officers did not violate the group’s rights, adding, “When trucks roll into [the] city carrying guys with helmets and flak jackets, we want to make sure that our officers will still be there to defend” the residents (AP/Zanesville Times Recorder, 2/21).

The 6th Circuit Court panel’s ruling is available online. Note: You must have Adobe Acrobat to view this ruling.

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has formed an exploratory committee for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, on Sunday at an event in Spartansburg, S.C., said he does not support Roe v. Wade — the 1973 Supreme Court decision that effectively barred state abortion bans — and that the decision should be overturned, the AP/International Herald Tribune reports (Davenport, AP/International Herald Tribune, 2/18). McCain also said that if elected president he would appoint judges who “strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench” (Davenport, AP/Los Angeles Times, 2/20). McCain during a news conference on Monday in Vero Beach, Fla., said claims that he has changed his position on Roe are “false,” adding that his position on the case is consistent with his record on abortion-rights issues (Bierschenk, TCPalm, 2/20).

Romney Discusses Embryonic Stem Cell Research Opposition
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, on Monday in an interview with the Associated Press discussed his opposition to some forms of human embryonic stem cell research, saying that he believes that researchers are able to obtain the “stem cells necessary for research through means that don’t represent a serious, moral problem,” the AP/San Diego Union-Tribune reports. Romney said he favors research using embryonic stem cell lines currently eligible for federal funding (Jackson, AP/San Diego Union-Tribune, 2/19). Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is allowed only for research using embryonic stem cell lines created on or before Aug. 9, 2001, under a policy announced by President Bush on that date (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 2/19). Romney also said he supports work on adult stem cells and, if elected, he would increase funds for such research. “It avoids all of the moral concerns and therefore presents scientific opportunity without moral dilemma,” he said, adding, “And I found no one to dispute the potential of such avenues of exploration that was able to convince me that these did not have merit” (AP/San Diego Union-Tribune, 2/19).

Opinion Piece
Romney during a 2005 interview did “his best not to explain his views on abortion,” and his changing positions on abortion rights and other issues have amounted to an “[e]xtreme [m]akeover,” Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus writes in an opinion piece (Marcus, Washington Post, 2/21). Since Romney first ran for U.S. Senate in 1994, he has acknowledged that his position on abortion has changed from “proudly” supporting abortion rights to saying that he would “like to see” Roe overturned. When Romney ran for governor in 2002, he promised to “preserve the status quo” on abortion rights in the state and oppose any changes to state laws that restricted or increased access to abortion. However, Romney in 2004 said when he studied human embryonic stem cell research, he experienced an “awakening that led him to the conclusion that ‘the sanctity of life had been cheapened’ by the Roe decision” (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 2/13). Marcus recalls that during an interview with several Post staffers two years ago, “It was hard to know what Romney actually thought about abortion rights other than that this was a political minefield it was best to avoid stepping into for as long as possible,” adding that his position on the issue has “[e]volved” since(Washington Post, 2/21).

Romney on Sunday in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” discussed abortion rights and stem cell research, among other issues (Stephanopoulos, “This Week,” ABC, 2/18). Video of the segment is available online. A transcript of the segment also is available online.

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

The following highlights recent news of state actions on abortion legislation.

• Alabama: The Department of Public Health is proposing a regulation that would require abortion providers to receive special training to perform the procedure, the Birmingham News reports. According to the proposal, physicians only would be permitted to perform abortions if they received special training from a qualified post-graduate program, performed abortions at a hospital and were approved by another doctor who met the standards but worked at a different clinic, State Health Officer Don Williamson said. The Committee on Public Health is scheduled to vote Wednesday on the proposal and on other rules that would set standards for follow-up care and equipment maintenance at clinics that offer abortions, the News reports. If the proposal passes, the next step would be to ask for public comment (Chandler, Birmingham News, 2/15).
  
  
• South Dakota: The House on Wednesday voted 45-25 to approve a bill (HB 1293) that would ban all abortions in the state except in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the pregnant woman, the Rapid City Journal reports (Harlan, Rapid City Journal, 2/15). The bill would allow rape survivors to undergo abortions if they report the rape to authorities within 50 days. Physicians would be required to confirm the report with authorities, as well as to take blood from aborted fetuses and give that information to police for DNA testing. For incest survivors, a doctor would be required to obtain the woman’s consent to report the crime along with the identity of the alleged perpetrator before an abortion could be performed. Blood samples from fetuses also would have to be provided to police. Abortions could be performed until the 17th week of pregnancy in cases of incest or rape. The bill carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for performing illegal abortions. The measure also would allow a pregnant woman to undergo an abortion if her health could be seriously damaged by carrying the pregnancy to term. Under the bill, a doctor from another practice must agree that the woman’s health is in jeopardy before the abortion could be performed (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 2/14). According to the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, a provision in the legislation says the measure will be placed on the 2008 ballot if it is passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor (Myers [1], Sioux Falls Argus Leader, 2/15). The House bill now goes to the Senate (Rapid City Journal, 2/15).
  
  
• South Dakota: The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday defeated three abortion-related measures, the Argus Leader reports. The committee voted 4-3 to reject a bill (SB 172) that would have required abortion providers to tell women seeking the procedure that no one can force them to undergo an abortion. Committee members also voted 4-3 to reject a bill (SB 171) that would have required facilities that provide abortions to post a sign stating that coercing a woman into having the procedure is prohibited. In addition, the committee voted 5-2 against passing a House-approved bill (HB 1296) that would have required a doctor to offer a pregnant woman seeking an abortion the opportunity to view a sonogram of the fetus. The measure would have required women who declined to view the sonogram to sign a form documenting her refusal (Myers [2], Sioux Falls Argus Leader, 2/15).
  

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Abortion-rights opponents in Illinois are criticizing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who is running for president in 2008, for votes he made on legislation while serving as a state senator, The Hill reports. Obama in 2001 and 2002 voted “present” or “no” on a package of bills known as the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which did not pass in 2001 and 2002 (Youngman, The Hill, 2/15). The legislation would have made it illegal for doctors to allow a fetus to die if it were delivered alive during an abortion procedure. Obama in August 2004 said he voted against the legislation because it did not include an exception to protect the life of a pregnant woman (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 8/11/04). In floor speeches during the votes, he expressed concerns about the constitutionality of the definition of a “born alive infant” and the inclusion of potential civil and criminal penalties for doctors in such circumstances. Obama also said that he agreed that there is a need to protect infants but that the legislation extended beyond the definition of fetal viability. “This is an area where potentially we might have compromised and … arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how … a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital,” he said.

Protest, Reaction
About 50 abortion-rights opponents on Saturday protested as Obama announced his candidacy for president in Springfield, Ill. The protesters — who were carrying signs and chanting, “No abortion, no Obama” — might become a “consistent presence” as Obama campaigns for president, according to The Hill. Jill Stanek — a registered nurse who has testified before state and national lawmakers on the issue and led the protest — said, “Everybody in the pro-life movement is completely aware of what Obama stands for — how bad he is.” Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said the legislation would have opened the door to “civil suits and criminal charges.” The “legislation was written to ban abortion, plain and simple,” Sutherland said, adding, “Sen. Obama saw the legislation, when he was there, for what it was.” Joseph Scheidler, founder of the Pro-Life Action League who helped lead the protests in Springfield, said his group “won’t concentrate on Obama,” but he added that he wanted to ensure that voters know the senator’s position on the issue (The Hill, 2/15).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Officials in the Mozambican government are considering legalizing abortion in an effort to reduce maternal deaths resulting from illegal, unsafe abortions, IRIN News reports. According to the Ministry of Health, unsafe abortion is the third-leading cause of death among pregnant women in the country, which has one of the highest maternal death rates worldwide. More than 40% of serious pregnancy complications treated at the central hospital in Maputo, Mozambique’s capital, are the result of illegal abortions, and unsafe abortions accounted for 11% of maternal deaths at the hospital during the 1990s.

Abortion is banned in the country except if the life or health of the pregnant woman is in danger. Physicians in some urban areas during Mozambique’s civil war routinely performed abortions if the pregnancy was the result of rape. Some urban physicians still perform the procedure in cases of rape; however, the $25 fee is too high for most Mozambicans. According to IRIN News, if the ban is lifted, safe abortions would be more widely available to low-income women and foreign donors would be able to fund the procedure.

“Changing the law and removing the stigma and taboo that surround abortion also allows women to openly seek and receive safe services and for their communities to offer the support they need for this,” Eunice Brookman-Amissah, vice president for the reproductive rights group Ipas in Africa, said. According to Ipas, abortion-related deaths decreased by 91% in South Africa after it lifted restrictions on abortion 10 years ago.

There has been little public debate in Mozambique on whether to change the law, IRIN News reports. Catholic leaders in the country recently distributed a pastoral note that said although the Roman Catholic Church wants to reduce maternal deaths and promote women’s rights, abortion “is not the solution.” According to the World Health Organization, 68,000 women worldwide die from unsafe abortions annually (IRIN News, 5/29).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

The following highlights recent news of state actions on abortion-related legislation.

• Georgia: Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) on Wednesday signed into law an amended version of a bill (HB 147) that requires women seeking abortions to be offered the option of viewing an ultrasound or sonogram image of the fetus, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports (Campos, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/24). The bill states that the requirement helps protect “unborn children from a woman’s uninformed decision to have an abortion.” Different versions of the measure passed the House and Senate, and a six-member panel appointed to reach compromise legislation added requirements, including that women have the option of listening to the heartbeat of the fetus. In addition, women will be required to sign a document stating whether they had agreed to see the image of the fetus. The Georgia Legislature approved the compromised legislation in April (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 4/24). The law goes into effect on July 1 (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/24).
  
  
• Louisiana: The House on Thursday unanimously voted to approve a measure (HB 614) that would ban so-called “partial-birth” abortion in the state, the AP/Shreveport Times reports. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Gary Beard (R), says that doctors who provide the procedure could receive fines between $1,000 and $10,000 and jail sentences between one and 10 years. The ban would allow exceptions when the life of the pregnant woman is in danger. The bill now moves to the Senate. Sen. Ben Nevers (D) is sponsoring a similar bill (SB 161) that is awaiting debate by the Senate health committee (Simpson, AP/Shreveport Times, 5/24).
  
  
• Oklahoma: A measure that bans the use of state or federal funds to perform abortions has become law after a deadline passed for it to be vetoed by Gov. Brad Henry (D), Reuters reports (Reuters, 5/24). Henry last month vetoed a similar bill (SB 714) that would have banned the use of state or federal funds to perform abortions except to save the lives of pregnant women. The vetoed legislation also would have barred using state-supported hospitals, clinics and equipment to perform abortions. In addition, the bill would have tightened the bypass provision of the state’s informed consent law by changing the definition of “medical emergency” and would have made all state employees ineligible to perform an abortion except to save the life of the woman. The Senate failed to override the veto by one vote. However, the Senate and House earlier this month approved a new bill that allows physicians more rights to discuss the procedure with the pregnant woman. Public hospitals still will be allowed to perform abortions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of pregnant women, according to supporters of the new law (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 5/23).
  

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

A case before the Texas Supreme Court over what should happen with three frozen embryos could have implications for Roe v. Wade — the 1973 Supreme Court case that effectively barred state abortion bans — the Los Angeles Times reports. The embryos were created by a Texas couple who divorced before the woman underwent in vitro fertilization. According to the Times, several hours before Augusta Roman was scheduled to undergo IVF, her husband at the time, Randy Roman, insisted that the procedure be canceled and that the embryos be frozen. The couple later began divorce proceedings. In the case, Augusta Roman is seeking to have the three embryos that survived the freezing process implanted, and Randy Roman is seeking to have them destroyed or to remain frozen indefinitely.

According to the Times, state courts have decided embryo cases on an individual basis because there is no federal precedent. The supreme courts of six states in similar cases generally ruled that the right of one divorcing spouse to not implant the embryos overrules the right of the other spouse to have them implanted. The Romans’ attorneys believe that the case, if appealed to the Supreme Court, could undermine Roe. Some socially conservative legal theorists, who are “buoyed” by the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold a ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortion, “believe a case involving frozen embryos could give an increasingly conservative court one vehicle for reconsidering” whether embryos have a right to life that is separate from a woman’s right to choose abortion. The Texas Supreme Court is not expected to decide whether to hear the case until late this year, and a federal appeal could take several more years, the Times reports (Sack, Los Angeles Times, 5/30).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.