Judge Says Disposed Fetus, Tissue Isn't a Person (Could SCOTUS reverse?)

[LiberalHeart]

SANDUSKY (AP) -- A hospital whose employee stored about 90 fetuses or fetal tissue instead of disposing them didn't violate the law, said a county judge, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling. Erie County Judge Tygh Tone ruled against extending the definition of "person" to include fetal tissue based on Roe v. Wade, which set a precedent that legal rights of a "person" have "generally been contingent upon live birth."

(Could this be appealed up to the Supreme Court -- giving the Justices a chance to overturn Roe v Wade?)

More on this story can be found at:
http://wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=4581421

[Quakerfriend]

1. Hey, guess what the hospitals are making a bundle of $$$

'storing' this fetal tissue. This tissue is like a gold mine of stem cells and researchers pay big $$ for them. They are not keeping it for nothing!

[superconnected]

2. Yeah, but if this goes before SCOTUS it challenges Roe vs. Wade directly.

eom.

[RC]

3. Maybe it is time to start reminding people that in Biblical times

new born were not named till 30 days after birth. It saved a lot of problems coming up with new name because so many babies died in those first 30 days.

Also the Catholic Church had no stance on abortion until, I think, 1952.

[LiberalHeart]

5. That surpises me about the church...

Abortion was a dirty and illegal little secret back in the '50s. I wonder what promoted the church to take a stand on it. I would have assumed that they would have been against all illegal activity.

Emily Dickinson's sister-in-law was rumored to have had a child or children "artifically removed." I thought that was a quaint way of describing abortion when I read it.

[madeline_con]

7. I don't get the point.... n/t

[Emillereid]

9. I think it was back in the 18th Century that the Catholic church

issued an opinion on the issue -- for some reason the 18th century comes to mind -- that is when the catholic church decided that life started at conception. Somehow I think it might not have been until the 19th century for a special edict against abortion. They didn't call it abortion -- they called it induction of the menses. Used all kinds of herbs.

[salin]

14. Years ago I heard that the Catholic position

per birth control (and abortion by extension) came around the time of the plagues of Europe when the Church was all powerful, but fearful that people would stop having children (fear of bringing childred into a world of dispair and death); that the roots of the belief were related to the context of the times.

[dflprincess]

16. Actually, the Church developed it's current position on abortion

around in the mid 1800s (I did a paper on it back in college), I think it was around 1868. This was about the same time most states began passing antiabortion laws, though part of the reason for the laws was that the procedures available back then were very dangerous to the woman and often resulted in her death.

[splat]

4. "Contingent upon live birth" has a nice commonsense ring to it /nt

[rodeodance]

6. Repugs would love to take this through the courts.

[xxqqqzme]

8. for a bunch hell-bent on

destroying the law, they sure love 2 drag crap before judges.

[colinmom71]

10. Ignoramous judge alert...

Roe v. Wade did NOT establish as precedent the legal principle that legal personhood rights begin only upon live birth. That has been a guiding principle of law long before even the 13 colonies existed. A fetus is not and can never be a legal entity simply because it does not live on it's own nor is it distinct as an individual.

Even if the fetuses and/or fetal tissue remnants had been legally considered persons at some point in time while living, what is being ruled upon here is dead, non-living human remains. The dead bodies of once living, autonomous people aren't considered legally existant persons upon their death. Their bodies become essentially the property of their designated next-of-kin or legally responsible associate to then decide upon proper disposal (burial, cremation, etc.). But then, that is not even material to this case.

What's really at issue here is whether it constitutes a count of criminal theft if an employee keeps a company's property (here, the fetal remains) rather than disposes of said property as instructed. Trying to muddy the waters with quibbles over the idea of fetal personhood and abortion rulings (whether we agree with him in substance or not) is over-reaching on the judges part, IMO.

And no. This case cannot really be used to challenge Roe v. Wade since it is not specified even if the fetal remains were garnered via abortion or miscarriage. And even if it is properly documented that the fetuses were acquired from abortions, Roe is irrelevant to the method of either disposal and/or preservation of fetal remains after the fact. Roe only decided when abortions are legal...

[LiberalHeart]

13. Thanks for the info....

You've put my mind at ease. I was worried that if, in some way, this got to SCOTUS, even debris could be deemed a person and from there all manner of mischief could follow.

Legally speaking, at what point does a fetus become a person? I'm thinking of the Scott Peterson case. Wasn't he charged with killing his unborn son as well as Lacy?

[colinmom71]

15. Well, that question has differing answers...

From the writings I've read by Constitutional scholars on fetal homicide laws, the only such statutes they tend agree may meet Consitutional muster are those statutes that strictly define fetal homicide as limited to medically viable fetuses (presuming developmentally normal fetuses, this would be starting at around 24 weeks) *and* to those fetal demises that are proven to be a result from injuries sustained to the fetus during the assault on the pregnant woman. Also, the state must show that the assailant had either reckless indifference regarding the pregnancy and/or intent to harm the fetus along with the woman dring the assault.

These laws also have exemptions for abortions, although post-viability abortions are pretty much illegal in every state in the US and are so rare as to be statistically non-existant anyway.

As for the Peterson case, yes he was convicted of murder for both his wife and the fetus. I don't know California's specific fetal homicide statute but i do believe it is rather similar to what I described above. I do remember that part of the forensic evidence gathered and presented at trial was used by the prosecution to establish that the baby's cause of death was indeterminate (whether he died in utero after the murder of Laci or whether he was removed from her body and then killed). The prosecutor elected to present the case as a fetal homicide since they weren't sure they could prove if the baby was murdered outside the womb. Because the pregnancy was healthy and well beyond viability being in question, the fetal homicide count was appropriately applied according to the statute's requirements and was probably the safest "bet" for the prosecutor to argue. And it worked - Peterson was convicted of both the wife's murder and fetal homicide.

Hope this helps answer your questions...

[BadgerKid]

11. abortion double standard?

Just googling for countries where abortion is legal (see for example http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/world_statistics.asp).

I'm sure this occurred to people before, but I'm just thinking about it now.

If abortion were banned at the federal level, would this country stop being allies with several european countries where abortion is legal? I doubt it. Would we stop importing from China? I doubt it. If abortion was left to the states to decide, would it be illegal for companies who import from countries where abortion is legal, to do business in those states where abortion was illegal? I doubt it.

IMO, abortion has just got to be a private issue, not a political one.

[jonnyo]

12. I guess they'll eventually have to outlaw invetro fertilization too then

since several eggs are fertilized and then only eggs deemed potentially viable are implanted. The rest are pretty much literally washed down the drain.

Or, maybe the mentally ill "christains" will forcibly implant the remaining eggs into female "detainees" to produce more laborers for the Haliburton camps. I guess we'll find out since the neocon new world plan is nearly complete.