Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Activists say the new rules place an unconstitutional burden on a woman seeking an abortion, which is a legally protected procedure after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. There is also concern that the new rules could lead to more women performing unsafe abortions outside of medical facilities.
I guess not. I think they can harvest the parts for research? Some people flush them down the toilet?
Now they have to cremate or bury
I know of no one that flushes it down the toilet and people are allowed to donate their bodies for research. (I say all of this as someone who is pro-life)
I guess not. I think they can harvest the parts for research? Some people flush them down the toilet?
Now they have to cremate or bury
Not sure about fetal remains, but some hospitals do, or used to, harvest umbilical cord and placenta.
It should be up to the parent(s). I would think those who are likely to abort, are the ones that wouldn't be doing a burial. Anyone who would want a burial, probably aren't having abortions. As it's a legal process, the decision of what to do with the remains should be private. (Pro-lifer here.)
I think that remains are usually cremated unless they're donated for research. I am not seeing anything but a way to place an additional burden on women who are already making a tough life decision.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I think that remains are usually cremated unless they're donated for research. I am not seeing anything but a way to place an additional burden on women who are already making a tough life decision.
So the constitutionality of a law like this is judged based on whether it will unduly burden a women's fundamental right to have access to abortion. This standard is further clarified if you read the Wikipedia page.
If the particular regulation does not 'unduly burden' the fundamental right, then our evaluation of that regulation is limited to our determination that the regulation rationally relates to a legitimate state purpose."[7] Justice John Paul Stevens in his partial concurrence, partial dissent to Casey further defined undue burden by saying, "[a] burden may be 'undue' either because [it] is too severe or because it lacks a legitimate, rational justification."[8]
Considering its Texas, I'm surprised a Funeral isn't required.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
