Personhood Seeking New Life with Republican Control

Just three days prior to the inauguration of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States, Representative Jody B. Hice (R-GA) introduced the Sanctity of Human Life Act (H R. 586), which, if enacted, would provide that the rights associated with legal personhood begin at fertilization. Then, in October 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services released its draft strategic plan, which identifies a core policy of protecting Americans at every stage of life, beginning at conception. While often touted as a means to outlaw abortion, protecting the lives of single-celled zygotes may also have implications for the practice of reproductive medicine and research. Indeed, such personhood efforts stand apart and distinct from more incremental attempts to restrict abortion that target the abortion procedure and those who would perform it. While personhood efforts have not been successful to date at either the state or federal levels, abortion opponents may find a friend in President Trump and his Supreme Court nominees. What is more, because the recent decision by the Court in Whole Woman\u27s Health v. Hellerstedt makes it more difficult for states to impose incremental restrictions on the abortion procedure, restrictions focused on the status of the unborn may assume increasing importance. Personhood rhetoric is often seen in proceedings involving the disposition of unused embryos and in laws that restrict access to abortion on the basis of gender, race, or disability. Laws outlawing abortion on the basis of fetal pain are also on the rise. With so much uncertainty surrounding the political landscape, this Article places the personhood movement in historical context with other antiabortion strategies. This Article further explores the theoretical underpinnings of the personhood movement and considers its future prospects with regard to abortion and other reproductive services

Personhood Seeking New Life with Republican Control

Just three days prior to the inauguration of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States, Representative Jody B. Hice (R-GA) introduced the Sanctity of Human Life Act (H R. 586), which, if enacted, would provide that the rights associated with legal personhood begin at fertilization. Then, in October 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services released its draft strategic plan, which identifies a core policy of protecting Americans at every stage of life, beginning at conception. While often touted as a means to outlaw abortion, protecting the lives of single-celled zygotes may also have implications for the practice of reproductive medicine and research. Indeed, such personhood efforts stand apart and distinct from more incremental attempts to restrict abortion that target the abortion procedure and those who would perform it. While personhood efforts have not been successful to date at either the state or federal levels, abortion opponents may find a friend in President Trump and his Supreme Court nominees. What is more, because the recent decision by the Court in Whole Woman\u27s Health v. Hellerstedt makes it more difficult for states to impose incremental restrictions on the abortion procedure, restrictions focused on the status of the unborn may assume increasing importance. Personhood rhetoric is often seen in proceedings involving the disposition of unused embryos and in laws that restrict access to abortion on the basis of gender, race, or disability. Laws outlawing abortion on the basis of fetal pain are also on the rise. With so much uncertainty surrounding the political landscape, this Article places the personhood movement in historical context with other antiabortion strategies. This Article further explores the theoretical underpinnings of the personhood movement and considers its future prospects with regard to abortion and other reproductive services

Germ-Line Gene Editing and Congressional Reaction in Context: Learning From Almost 50 Years of Congressional Reactions to Biomedical Breakthroughs

On December 18, 2015, President Obama signed into law a policy rider forestalling the therapeutic modification of the human germ line. The rider, motivated by the science’s potential unethical ends, is only the most recent instance in which the legislature cut short the ongoing national conversation on the acceptability of a developing science. This essay offers historical perspective on what bills were proposed and passed surrounding four other then-developing scientific breakthroughs—Recombinant DNA, in vitro fertilization, Cloning, Stem Cells—to better analyze how Congress is, and should, regulate this exciting and promising science

Handle with Care: The WHO Report on Human Genome Editing

On July 14, 2021, the Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing of the World Health Organization released a much-anticipated report comprised of two separate documents, Human Genome Editing: Recommendations and Human Genome Editing: A Framework for Governance. The committee also released a “position paper” on both. These documents—collectively referred to as the WHO Report on Human Genome Editing—complement a recently issued report by the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing, a joint effort of the National Academy of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Royal Society from September 2020. Other significant reports were issued earlier by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the German Ethics Council, and a host of others. The WHO report, therefore, stands along-side a long list—more than five dozen—of other, similar re-ports about the ethics of human germline genome editing. But the WHO report also stands out in several respects. It is far more synoptic in scope than its predecessors, recognizing the multidimensional (and multijurisdictional) nature of governing human genome editing. It also contains recommendations for governance mechanisms that are far more nuanced than those in prior attempts. These include using intellectual property licensing as a private governance tool, an instrument largely unexplored in earlier reports. In addition, the WHO report is among the first to explicitly contemplate a world in which human germline genome editing is readily available, and it identifies a list of governance questions that regulators, developers, and users of the technology should consider in the technology’s implementation. Rather than adopting a mechanistic framework of color-coded permissibilities or prohibitions, the WHO report suggests that ethical assessments of human germline genome editing are deeply complex and surprisingly fragile, that the technology, rather than being accepted in some circumstances and banned in others, should be handled with care.Ope

Health Rights in the Balance: The Case against Perinatal Shackling of Women behind Bars

Rationalized for decades on security grounds, perinatal shackling entails the application of handcuffs, leg irons, and/or waist shackles to the incarcerated woman prior to, during, and after labor and delivery. During labor and delivery proper, perinatal shackling may entail chaining women to the hospital bed by the ankle, wrist, or both. Medically untenable, legally challenged, and ever controversial, perinatal shackling remains the standard of practice in most US states despite sustained two-decades-long efforts by health rights legal advocates, human rights organizations, and medical professionals. Herein we review the current statutory, regulatory, legal, and medical framework undergirding the use of restraints on pregnant inmates and explore potential avenues of redress and relief to this challenge. We also recognize the courage of the women whose stories are being told. If history is any guide, the collective thrust of domestic and international law, attendant litigation, dedicated advocacy, and strength of argument bode well for continued progress toward restraint-free pregnancies in correctional setting