• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

[RD] Abortion, once again

I hadn’t broken Poland’s abortion laws – so why was I put through hell?

In May, I made the decision to take abortion pills to end a pregnancy. I wasn’t scared. I’ve been involved in LGBTQ+ and pro-choice activism in Poland for years, I know my rights and knew I wasn’t breaking the law. Though Poland’s abortion law is strict, terminating your own pregnancy is not illegal. So, like thousands of Polish women every year, I ordered the medication online from Women Help Women, a secure source abroad.

One night, two weeks after I’d taken the pills, I was at home when suddenly there was a loud banging on my front door and shouts of “police!”.

I had just come off the phone with my psychologist. It had been a stressful time and that night I’d had a panic attack. I’ve had these many times before and I called my psychologist for help. She asked me about any new medication I’d been taking so I told her about the abortion pills.

She was calm and told me that she was calling a paramedic. Instead she called the police. Later, the recording of her conversation with the police was leaked to the press, where she can be heard telling them that I’d had an abortion and was suicidal, though I specifically told her I wasn’t.

I have a lot to say about my psychologist, none of it fit for print, but suffice to say I trusted her completely and she violated that trust and our confidentiality.

When I let the police in, they did not treat me like someone whose wellbeing they were concerned for. They stomped all over my flat in their boots, shouting and pushing me around. They said they were investigating “a crime” without specifying what it was.

They confiscated my laptop and told me to leave with them. There was an ambulance waiting. I was in shock and felt I had no choice but to go with them.

They took me to the emergency department at the hospital. While I sat in a corner crying, the doctors there told the police that they could look after me and that they could leave.

This wasn’t what they wanted to hear. They took me to another hospital with a gynaecological department, where more police were waiting for me. All this time they never said a word about what I was supposed to have done wrong.

The doctors at the second hospital seemed intimidated by the police. They were told to take my blood and give me a vaginal exam. My consent didn’t seem to matter. The doctor who was examining me let me know he didn’t want to get involved. “I do not care about any of this,” he told me.

After the examination, the police got more aggressive. Female officers took me to a gynaecologist’s office and the doctor left me. They told me to strip naked but I refused to take off my knickers. They made me squat and cough in front of them. Why would they do this but to frighten and humiliate me?

They threatened me with a cavity search. With my back to the wall, crying and naked except for my knickers, I felt like a hunted animal. I screamed at them, “What do you even want from me?”

I was left exhausted but angry. A few weeks later I decided to go public with what happened to me. I figured I’d rather stand and take a hit from the government than cower. I gave interviews to newspapers and television channels about how the police had treated me. This unleashed hell.

“Abortion” is like a magic word in Poland, it provokes huge reactions. In the weeks afterwards the entire country felt that they had permission to debate my uterus and my sanity.

At first, there were articles that accused me of exaggerating or lying. The police said that they had come to my flat because I was suicidal. Then politicians, journalists and social media started to say I was mentally unstable. It felt unreal to watch myself being discussed on TV like that.

Nude pictures I had published as part of my work as a performance artist were circulated on the internet to say I was a deviant and a satanist.

The story kept escalating, fuelled by conspiracy theories. People were saying I was a man, the whole story was fake or that I didn’t even exist. For a while I had to move out of my house for my safety.

State media became especially obsessed. I guess someone felt that I was a threat. They dedicated a whole segment on evening television to me and my lawyer, who they claimed was lying. Because my surname was never made public – although one politician later leaked it – they churned out dozens of headlines calling me “Pani Joanna [Madam Joanna] from Kraków”, implying that I am unreliable and unstable. I had become a character on to whom everyone was projecting their own ideas.

I decided to claim her back. In my art I take on different personae; male and female. I treat gender roles like acting roles and I treat Pani Joanna the same way.

The title of my latest photography series is “Pani Joanna from Kraków … [fill in the blank]”. I invited people to complete the title themselves. For some, Pani Joanna is a very brave woman – a hero. For others she is mentally unhinged. For others still she is evil.

Pani Joanna is not me, but six months after that knock on the door I am proud of how she has shaken up the discourse. She forced everyone – including conservative politicians – to acknowledge that terminating your own pregnancy is not illegal.

In my country, many women didn’t know they could not be criminalised for their abortions. Abortion laws kill women. Politicians talked about changing our laws in the run-up to the election. It became a bargaining chip. Now that they’re about to form a government, they have become silent on this issue.

I paid a steep price for speaking out, but I gained a platform, from which I could loudly refuse to consent to the intimidation tactics of the authorities. If my story reached only one woman who didn’t know her rights, then it was all worth it. I refuse to be silenced.
 
I hadn’t broken Poland’s abortion laws – so why was I put through hell?

In May, I made the decision to take abortion pills to end a pregnancy. I wasn’t scared. I’ve been involved in LGBTQ+ and pro-choice activism in Poland for years, I know my rights and knew I wasn’t breaking the law. Though Poland’s abortion law is strict, terminating your own pregnancy is not illegal. So, like thousands of Polish women every year, I ordered the medication online from Women Help Women, a secure source abroad.

One night, two weeks after I’d taken the pills, I was at home when suddenly there was a loud banging on my front door and shouts of “police!”.

I had just come off the phone with my psychologist. It had been a stressful time and that night I’d had a panic attack. I’ve had these many times before and I called my psychologist for help. She asked me about any new medication I’d been taking so I told her about the abortion pills.

She was calm and told me that she was calling a paramedic. Instead she called the police. Later, the recording of her conversation with the police was leaked to the press, where she can be heard telling them that I’d had an abortion and was suicidal, though I specifically told her I wasn’t.

I have a lot to say about my psychologist, none of it fit for print, but suffice to say I trusted her completely and she violated that trust and our confidentiality.

When I let the police in, they did not treat me like someone whose wellbeing they were concerned for. They stomped all over my flat in their boots, shouting and pushing me around. They said they were investigating “a crime” without specifying what it was.

They confiscated my laptop and told me to leave with them. There was an ambulance waiting. I was in shock and felt I had no choice but to go with them.

They took me to the emergency department at the hospital. While I sat in a corner crying, the doctors there told the police that they could look after me and that they could leave.

This wasn’t what they wanted to hear. They took me to another hospital with a gynaecological department, where more police were waiting for me. All this time they never said a word about what I was supposed to have done wrong.

The doctors at the second hospital seemed intimidated by the police. They were told to take my blood and give me a vaginal exam. My consent didn’t seem to matter. The doctor who was examining me let me know he didn’t want to get involved. “I do not care about any of this,” he told me.

After the examination, the police got more aggressive. Female officers took me to a gynaecologist’s office and the doctor left me. They told me to strip naked but I refused to take off my knickers. They made me squat and cough in front of them. Why would they do this but to frighten and humiliate me?

They threatened me with a cavity search. With my back to the wall, crying and naked except for my knickers, I felt like a hunted animal. I screamed at them, “What do you even want from me?”

I was left exhausted but angry. A few weeks later I decided to go public with what happened to me. I figured I’d rather stand and take a hit from the government than cower. I gave interviews to newspapers and television channels about how the police had treated me. This unleashed hell.

“Abortion” is like a magic word in Poland, it provokes huge reactions. In the weeks afterwards the entire country felt that they had permission to debate my uterus and my sanity.

At first, there were articles that accused me of exaggerating or lying. The police said that they had come to my flat because I was suicidal. Then politicians, journalists and social media started to say I was mentally unstable. It felt unreal to watch myself being discussed on TV like that.

Nude pictures I had published as part of my work as a performance artist were circulated on the internet to say I was a deviant and a satanist.

The story kept escalating, fuelled by conspiracy theories. People were saying I was a man, the whole story was fake or that I didn’t even exist. For a while I had to move out of my house for my safety.

State media became especially obsessed. I guess someone felt that I was a threat. They dedicated a whole segment on evening television to me and my lawyer, who they claimed was lying. Because my surname was never made public – although one politician later leaked it – they churned out dozens of headlines calling me “Pani Joanna [Madam Joanna] from Kraków”, implying that I am unreliable and unstable. I had become a character on to whom everyone was projecting their own ideas.

I decided to claim her back. In my art I take on different personae; male and female. I treat gender roles like acting roles and I treat Pani Joanna the same way.

The title of my latest photography series is “Pani Joanna from Kraków … [fill in the blank]”. I invited people to complete the title themselves. For some, Pani Joanna is a very brave woman – a hero. For others she is mentally unhinged. For others still she is evil.

Pani Joanna is not me, but six months after that knock on the door I am proud of how she has shaken up the discourse. She forced everyone – including conservative politicians – to acknowledge that terminating your own pregnancy is not illegal.

In my country, many women didn’t know they could not be criminalised for their abortions. Abortion laws kill women. Politicians talked about changing our laws in the run-up to the election. It became a bargaining chip. Now that they’re about to form a government, they have become silent on this issue.

I paid a steep price for speaking out, but I gained a platform, from which I could loudly refuse to consent to the intimidation tactics of the authorities. If my story reached only one woman who didn’t know her rights, then it was all worth it. I refuse to be silenced.
Thank you - I just read this before I logged in. This woman is so wonderful everyone should read the article.
 

El Salvador woman freed after abortion conviction​

A Salvadoran woman has been freed from prison more than seven years after she was convicted for having an abortion.

The 28-year-old, identified only as Lilian, was sentenced to 30 years in prison in 2015.

She gave birth to a girl in a public hospital in 2015, but the baby suffered health complications and died there three days later.

There is a total ban on abortion in El Salvador, which has one of the world's strictest anti-abortion laws.

Prosecutors had accused Lilian of not taking care of the foetus during her pregnancy, and she was charged with negligence and aggravated murder.

Lilian, who has a 10-year-old daughter, has always maintained her innocence, and said she never intended to terminate her pregnancy.

"In the name of all my companions, I ask you to stop accusing and prosecuting other innocent women like me," she said in a news conference on Wednesday.

"It was a very hard trauma to live through and I don't wish it on anyone."

Campaign groups who supported Lilian during her ordeal said she was freed in December, but the information has only now been made public.

They said the judge's decision to release Lilian was based on the fact that she was in a vulnerable situation in hospital when she lost her baby.

El Salvador's total ban on abortions was introduced in 1998. It does not include exemptions in cases of rape or when the pregnancy poses a health risk for the mother.

Those found guilty of terminating their pregnancy face between two and eight years in prison. But in many cases the charge is changed to aggravated homicide, which carries a minimum sentence of 30 years.

Dozens of women are believed to have been wrongly imprisoned in El Salvador under suspicion of having had an abortion.

Following campaigns by rights groups, a number of women who were convicted have been released in recent years. But some still remain in prison and are serving decades-long sentences.

"We insist that we are asking for justice, so women have access to our sexual and reproductive rights," Mariana Moisa, from civil rights group Nos Faltan Las 17 (We Miss The 17), said at Wednesday's news conference.

President Nayib Bukele, who is widely expected to be re-elected next month, says he intends to improve conditions in hospitals to make childbirth safer.

But he has stressed that he has no intention of changing El Salvador's current abortion law.

Most of the country's population is either Roman Catholic or Evangelical, who say that life begins at conception and must be protected at all costs.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-68014699
 

North Dakota judge rejects temporary exemption to section of abortion ban that targets doctors​

Request sought to bar state from enforcing law against doctors who determine pregnancy poses health risk

A North Dakota judge denied a temporary block on a part of the state's revised abortion laws that would have allowed doctors to perform the procedure when they deem it necessary to save a patient's life or health.

The request asked the judge to bar the state from enforcing the law against physicians who use their "good-faith medical judgment" to perform an abortion because of complications that could pose "a risk of infection, hemorrhage, high blood pressure, or which otherwise makes continuing a pregnancy unsafe."

But on Tuesday, State District Judge Bruce Romanick said the request for a preliminary injunction "is not appropriate and the plaintiffs have presented no authority for the court to grant the specific relief requested."

North Dakota, which borders Saskatchewan and Manitoba, outlaws all abortions except in cases in which women could face death or a "serious health risk." People who perform abortions could be charged with a felony under the law, but patients would not.

The judge said the plaintiffs appeared to request that he, "by way of a preliminary injunction, change application of the exception from 'reasonable medical judgment' to 'good faith medical judgment.'

"Plaintiffs have cited the court with no legal authority that would allow the court to re-write the statute in this manner under the pretense of providing injunctive relief," he added.

The state's revised abortion laws also provide an exception for pregnancies caused by rape and incest, but only in the first six weeks, before many women know they are pregnant. Furthermore, it allows for treatment of ectopic and molar pregnancies, in which there is no chance for the fetus to survive.

"Though we are disappointed by today's decision, the court did not reach the constitutional questions at the heart of this case," said Meetra Mehdizade, attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, in a statement.

"We remain confident that we will prevail after the court hears further evidence of how this law harms pregnant North Dakotans."

But Republican state Sen. Janne Myrdal, who brought the 2023 bill revising the laws, welcomed the judge's ruling.

"I think we have something that's very clear for physicians to see," she said.

"I think it's common sense what we put in as far as the health exceptions, and it goes with the intent of the legislators, so I applaud this judge for reading into it and realizing that the authority lies with us, as far as writing the law, and interpreting it simply shouldn't be that hard for the physicians."

The Red River Women's Clinic in Fargo, N.D., sued the state last year after the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, which overturned the court's landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling establishing a nationwide right to abortion.

The lawsuit targeted the state's since-repealed trigger ban — designed to go into effect immediately if the court overturned Roe v. Wade — as unconstitutional.

The clinic has now moved out of the state, from Fargo to neighbouring Moorhead, Minn., where abortion is legal.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/north-dakota-abortion-law-block-1.7092381
 
That one isn't a rectangle state.
 
Looks quite rectangular to me!
 
Yet it isn't.
 
It's a cleaver with a rusty edge. The rectangle states are proper synthetic borders.
 
Or if it burnt down at some point in recent ish history.
 

France to enshrine abortion in its constitution in response to rollback of rights in U.S.​

Abortion isn't a constitutional right in Canada, either

France's Senate adopted a bill on Wednesday to enshrine the right to an abortion in the Constitution, clearing a key hurdle for legislation promised by President Emmanuel Macron in response to a rollback of abortion rights in the United States.

Wednesday's vote came after the lower house, the National Assembly, overwhelmingly approved the proposal in January. The measure now goes before a joint session of Parliament for its expected approval by a three-fifths majority next week.

Macron said after the vote that his government is committed to "making women's right to have an abortion irreversible by enshrining it in the constitution." He said on X, formerly Twitter, that he would convene a joint session of Parliament for a final vote on Monday.

Macron's government wants Article 34 of the constitution amended to specify that "the law determines the conditions by which is exercised the freedom of women to have recourse to an abortion, which is guaranteed."

The senate adopted the bill on a vote of 267 in favour, and 50 against.

"This vote is historic," French Justice Minister Éric Dupond-Moretti said. "The Senate has written a new page in women's rights."

None of France's major political parties represented in Parliament has questioned the right to abortion, which was decriminalized in 1975.

Abortion not a constitutional right in Canada​

In Canada, abortion has been legal since 1988, when the Supreme Court decided in R. v. Morgentaler that a law that criminalized it was unconstitutional.

While there are no laws barring abortion, it's also not considered a constitutionally protected right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Instead, it's regulated as a medical procedure.

An abortion law in Canada would open the door to new restrictions, notes Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights on its website.

"If the government tries to create a bill to guarantee the right to abortion, it will open the door to anti-choice politicians trying to put limits on abortion for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with science or medical need," it says.

When a leaked copy of the decision overturning Roe v. Wade in the U.S. was released in 2022, reporters in Canada asked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau whether he would consider putting legislation on the table to enshrine such a right. He left the possibility open, but added he wants to prevent a situation where rights could be rolled back, as was the case in the U.S.

Last year, on International Safe Abortion Day, Trudeau reiterated that abortions are "safe and legal."

"We will never put a woman's right to choose up for debate," he said in a statement at the time.

'Currents of opinion'​

In France, with both houses of Parliament adopting the bill, Monday's joint session at the Palace of Versailles is expected to be largely a formality.

The government argued in its introduction to the bill that the right to abortion is threatened in the United States, where the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned a 50-year-old ruling that used to guarantee it.

"Unfortunately, this event is not isolated: in many countries, even in Europe, there are currents of opinion that seek to hinder at any cost the freedom of women to terminate their pregnancy if they wish," the introduction to the French legislation says.

In Poland, a controversial tightening of the already restrictive abortion law led to protests in the country last year. The Polish constitutional court ruled in 2020 that women could no longer terminate pregnancies in cases of severe fetal deformities, including Down syndrome.

France will become the first country in Europe to enshrine abortion in its legislation, Sen. Melanie Vogel wrote on X Wednesday.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/france-abortion-rights-1.7128501
 
One of the rectangle states outlawed IVF apparently

I'm now intrigued to hear what the reasoning/ruling would be from this same Court, if Alabamans demand SSN's for each of their frozen IVF embryos and claim a childcare tax credit for each and every embryo, to cover the cost of cold storage and IVF treatments :think:

As an aside... Does the driver transporting frozen embryos get to drive in the HOV lane? :think:
 
Last edited:
I'm now intrigued to hear what the reasoning/ruling would be from this same Court, if Alabamans demand SSN's for each of their frozen IVF embryos and claim the childcare tax credit for each and every embryo, to cover the cost of cold storage and IVF treatments :think:
It does seem to ask difficult questions of the state. At least one of these companies is going to go bankrupt. Is the state going to step in, or is it going to let thousands of its citizens die when the electricity gets cut off?
 
It does seem to ask difficult questions of the state. At least one of these companies is going to go bankrupt. Is the state going to step in, or is it going to let thousands of its citizens die when the electricity gets cut off?

No, it'll find a way to charge someone with thousands of counts of negligent homicide. Oh the humanity, etc etc.
 
Influential abortion-pill studies retracted

The journal publisher Sage has retracted two papers from 2021 and 2022 that suggested the abortion drug mifepristone causes a burden on the public-health system. The papers, which were cited in a case set to be heard by the US Supreme Court, had multiple problems, including data analysis errors and unsupported assumptions. In addition, the studies’ authors, many of whom are affiliated with anti-abortion organizations, failed to declare conflicts of interest, Sage said. Reproductive-health specialists say many similar studies have yet to be addressed. One reason appears to be that some journals are afraid of being sued.

Spoiler Full article :

Early this month, a scientific publisher retracted two studies1,2 cited by a federal judge in Texas when he ruled that the abortion pill mifepristone should be taken off the market, suggesting that the drug causes a burden on the public-health system. It also retracted a third3 that surveyed abortion providers in Florida, linking them to malpractice and disciplinary issues. According to Sage Publications, the first two papers had problems with study design and methodology and errors in data analysis. And all three included unsupported assumptions and misleading data presentations. In addition, the studies’ authors, many of whom are affiliated with anti-abortion organizations, failed to declare conflicts of interest, Sage said in its retraction notice.

Nature spoke to the researcher who contacted Sage with concerns about the papers, as well as to reproductive-health specialists to learn about the perceived issues that triggered the papers’ retractions. They praise the retractions, but say that there are many similar publications alleging the harms of abortion that have yet to be addressed.

James Studnicki, the lead author of the three papers and director of data analytics at the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) in Arlington, Virginia, which describes itself as a pro-life research organization, said in a statement that there is “no legitimate reason for Sage’s retractions”, and that the authors “fully complied with Sage’s conflict disclosure requirements” by reporting their affiliations and CLI funding. The authors will be taking legal action against Sage, according to Studnicki.

Papers questioned

Chris Adkins, a pharmaceutical scientist at South University in Savannah, Georgia, first came across one of the Sage papers after it was cited in April 2023 in a ruling by Matthew Kacsmaryk in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Kacsmaryk pointed to the study, published in 20211, as evidence that mifepristone-induced abortions lead to an elevated incidence of emergency-room (ER) visits.

“I found enough issues in the paper that I felt compelled to reach out to the journal,” Adkins says — especially given its impact.

The Texas ruling has since been appealed, and the lawsuit has wended its way to the US Supreme Court, which will hear arguments in late March about whether mifepristone use should be restricted nationwide.

After hearing concerns about the 2021 paper, Sage began an investigation. Two more papers by some of the same authors were included in the review, and the publisher enlisted independent experts to examine the science behind the studies.

The 2021 paper compares the number of ER visits in the 30 days after a surgical abortion with those after a medication-induced abortion, using data from Medicaid, a US government programme that provides health insurance to people with limited resources. The conclusion, now retracted, was that medication-induced abortions were linked to more visits.

One problem, Adkins says, is that the study claims that the incidence of visits after any type of induced abortion is increasing year on year, without comparing the trend with that in overall ER visits. If overall ER visits were increasing owing to, say, a rise in Medicaid use, the trend could not be attributed to abortions becoming riskier.

The authors pointed Nature to a rebuttal letter they publicly released after Sage’s investigation, in response to a request for comment (see Supplementary information). They deny that the study’s focus was on comparing people who had an abortion with those who didn’t. One conclusion listed in the paper begins: “The incidence and per-abortion rate of ER visits following any induced abortion are growing”.

Another issue raised by researchers is that the study uses ER visits as a proxy for abortion-related complications, says Ushma Upadhyay, a reproductive-health specialist at the University of California, San Francisco. “We know that many people go to an emergency department because they live too far from the abortion provider,” she says, and they want someone to check any bleeding they might experience after taking mifepristone. Many studies4 have shown that mifepristone is safe, and that bleeding is a normal, short-lived side effect of taking it — not a complication.

In their rebuttal letter, the authors quote from their 2021 paper, saying that ER visits are “particularly insightful” events to use when comparing the relative safety of chemical and surgical abortions. “Adverse events following a mifepristone abortion are more likely to be experienced at home in the absence of a physician, increasing the likelihood of an ER visit,” they add.

Although Sage did not publicly release the findings of its independent reviewers, the authors’ rebuttal letter gives insight into other problems that the experts flagged.

One of the papers, published in 20193, investigates the characteristics of physicians who provide abortions in the state of Florida. It says that nearly half of the abortion providers that the researchers evaluated had at least one malpractice claim, public complaint, disciplinary action or criminal charge against them, without providing any comparison with the overall rate of such claims in the general physician population. According to the rebuttal letter, two independent reviewers noted that, because abortion providers do not have to advertise their services publicly or necessarily register with the state, the cohort investigated by the authors might be biased in some unknown direction.

The authors say in their letter that the paper made no claims that the sample was statistically representative or could be generalized to other states.

When asked by Nature how the papers made it through review, a Sage spokesperson responded that the publisher relies on journal editors to make individual decisions on submitted works based on the evaluations of peer reviewers. In its retraction notice, Sage said that it discovered one peer reviewer who had evaluated the three papers was affiliated with an anti-abortion organization.

Roadblocks to retractions

Upadhyay was surprised — and relieved — to hear the news of the retractions. It’s difficult for publishers to retract these types of articles, she says. “In the past, we’ve seen that anti-abortion researchers have threatened lawsuits against the publishers.”

Chelsea Polis, an epidemiologist at the research organization Population Council in New York City, points to a meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Psychiatry5 as an example. Many scholars, including Polis and her colleagues, have published letters pointing out concerns about the methods used in the paper, which concluded that there’s an increased risk of mental-health problems after an abortion.

An investigation by The BMJ last year reported that even after an internal panel appointed by the journal recommended that the article should be retracted, the journal declined to do so. Members of that panel resigned from the journal’s board as a result and suggested that the publisher, the Royal College of Psychiatrists in London, fears being sued. The author, Priscilla Coleman, a psychologist retired from Bowling Green State University in Ohio, threatened legal action after she was notified that the paper was being investigated.

Coleman did not respond to Nature’s request for comment.

Contacted by Nature, the Royal College of Psychiatrists did not comment on what motivated its decision. Instead, it pointed to a 2023 statement indicating that “the widely available public debate on the paper, including the letters of complaint already available alongside the article online”, made it unnecessary to retract the study. According to a commentary published today in The BMJ6, the paper has been cited in 25 court cases, including the ruling by Kacsmaryk, as well as in 14 parliamentary hearings in 6 countries.

Polis, who has herself been sued because of another complaint she lodged that led to a paper being retracted, says that these legal threats discourage academics from speaking out against problematic papers. “At least in my field of sexual and reproductive health, I don’t think enough feel compelled to action,” she adds. “At present, there is a lot of risk in taking on this kind of work, and very few advantages.”
 
Screenshot_2024_0301_194703.jpg

Screenshot_2024_0301_194740.jpg
Screenshot_2024_0301_194833.jpg
 
Chief Justice's Christian Reasoning in IVF Opinion Sparks Alarm Over Church-State Separation

When the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are considered children under state law, its chief justice had a higher authority in mind
By Associated Press
|
Feb. 23, 2024, at 8:01 a.m.


"By citing verses from the Bible and Christian theologians in his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tom Parker alarmed advocates for church-state separation, while delighting religious conservatives who oppose abortion.

Human life, Parker wrote, “cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself.”"




So human law is out, because God's Law is on the GQP's side. And God's Law must take precedence. This guy is a protege of Judge Roy Moore.
 
Back
Top Bottom