ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
Why would used condoms have anything to do with this bill?
something about catholics and sperm and batman, presumably
Why would used condoms have anything to do with this bill?
That's not even in the ballpark of plausibility.
Also, please don't use the phrase "slippery slope" when talking about the contents of a used condom.
That's not even in the ballpark of plausibility.
Also, please don't use the phrase "slippery slope" when talking about the contents of a used condom.
Looks like I'm going to be digging for my stem cells soon. One lab shovel coming up.
That's not even in the ballpark of plausibility.
Also, please don't use the phrase "slippery slope" when talking about the contents of a used condom.
I'm going to wait for Creamy Goodness to weigh in here.
What if you jack off into a condom?
Serious question about stem cell research: where are things at with regrowing auditory hair cells?
The "life begins at conception" idea is going to be thrown out the window within our lifetime or at the very least the idea of conception will change.
Fuck Texas.
And what a great victory that will be.
Without commenting on the wisdom of this law from a policy standpoint, I can't see how it would be unconstitutional. It doesn't impose any burden on the mother, much less an undue burden. Presumably, opponents will focus on increased costs to the provider, but it isn't like the landfill is free. In any event, the legislature should have the ability to enact laws that it views as designed to uphold what it views as the sanctity of life (not mention the santitation of the process) even if those laws result in marginal increased costs.
The law also called for abortion providers to bury or cremate fetal tissue. The state contended that this maintained dignity for the potential life represented by the fetus.
Planned Parenthood argued that a patient who chooses to take possession of the fetal tissue is not held to the same standard under the law and can dispose of it as she sees fit. Planned Parenthood also noted that the burial or cremation requirement could increase its expenses between two- and four-fold.
This was, Pratt wrote, "a much closer call." But she said the court would likely still be to rule in favor of Planned Parenthood, because the law does not recognize a fetus as a person. As such, she said there was "no legal basis for the state to treat fetal remains with 'the same' dignity as human remains."
"To be clear," Pratt wrote, "whether or not an individual views fetal tissue as essentially the same as human remains is each person’s own personal and moral decision. ... The Court cannot resolve this moral question. But as a legal question, there is currently no basis which would allow this Court to recognize fetal tissue as such."
Did someone say new hair?????????
No one is required to bury anything. That's what happens when you stop reading after the headline.