“The Kansas law requires …that abortionists have privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic, and that clinics to be fitted with drugs and equipment to deal with a medical crisis.”
I don’t understand how this would be a bad thing, or why anyone would not want doctors to be able to care for their patients entrusted to their care, whatever the reason.
“For medical purposes I am her mother,” Ms. Williams said. “But I am also her aunt.”
I can’t imagine lying to a child about their origins, particularly if they came from a sperm or egg donor. With the uprising of genetic disorder discoveries, how is withholding that type of information ever justified? How can you be so sure that that 20, 40, 60 years down the road, knowing whether their birthmother was vaccinated as a baby is going to save their life or not? How do you answer family medical history forms that ask for the conditions of your birth-grandparents, and in certain cases, your birth-great-grandparents? I’m not singling out children of donors, either; I truly hope that this same type of information is made available for adopted children as well. It just makes sense.
A family tree is a family tree. You come from who you come from, but you live with who you live with. Take joy in the fact that you were chosen to be adopted, or carried to term, or anything of that sort; but I have serious reservations about withholding genealogical information, particularly as a child moves from adolescence to adulthood and is more responsible for their own medical needs.
(A side note- I disagree with not doing family trees in classrooms.)
Curious what special cases readers have encountered.
Oh this is going to be interesting …
Read it. It makes sense.
“The Obama administration, adopting a similar stance to the one taken by President George W Bush’s, believes executing Leal could endanger Americans abroad who are also entitled to consular assistance under the Vienna Convention.
“This case implicates United States foreign-policy interests of the highest order,” said Donald Verrilli, Mr Obama’s Solicitor General in an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court case.
“The imminent execution of petitioner would place the United States in irreparable breach of its international law obligation.”
Executing him, he said, “would have serious repercussions for United States foreign relations, law enforcement and other co-operation with Mexico, and the ability of American citizens travelling abroad to have the benefits of consular assistance in the event of detention”.
Interesting to read about my state from a British point of view.
Also, not sure what I think of this case. Interested in others’ thoughts.
These are great!!
My favorite: MAKE A FIREPIT. Ah memories of Rome.
I wish I was a kid again sometimes.