The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: protection
Alabama's Law Protecting IVF Embryos Is Wrong -- But Consistent

Alabama's Law Protecting IVF Embryos Is Wrong -- But Consistent

I'm not here to join the mockery of Alabama for declaring that embryos are children — and, therefore, in vitro fertilization clinics must protect them forever. On the contrary, I admire its honesty. Many states have effectively banned abortions, arguing that destroying an embryo amounts to baby killing. Yet they look the other way when fertility clinics discard hundreds of thousands of unused embryos, which they routinely do.

Let's be clear. I believe in the right to an abortion within a reasonable time limit and whenever the mother's life is in danger. Mothers-to-be often refer to the cluster of cells that constitute the embryo as a "baby," which is understandable. Science does not.

Nevertheless, an Alabama court ruled that frozen embryos resulting from IVF treatments are considered children under the law. Other states have hypocritically gone halfway in that direction. Some of their fetal personhood laws let women sue for back child support since conception.

Give Alabama credit for walking the walk.

Biologically speaking, there is virtually no difference between an embryo created through IVF and one conceived naturally. And that's what the Alabama court is saying.

Fearing the political repercussions, however, Republican lawmakers in Alabama are trying to weasel out of the consequences. They are working on proposals to redefine a frozen fertilized egg as "potential life," as opposed to the fully human one inside the uterus.

Baloney. Both kinds of fertilized eggs are potential life.

Some pro-life advocates hold that while most of the embryos created in IVF clinics will never be used, the clinics enable couples to create life that wouldn't have happened without them. That's a valid argument.

But for the true opponents of abortion, that argument is one of political convenience. Former President George W. Bush made a show of pushing for adoptions of frozen embryos by women who would have them implanted. He called the embryos "snowflakes."

But fertility centers continued to discard unused embryos. Bush never threatened to close them down or force the IVF clinics — and the egg and sperm donors — to preserve them in perpetuity.

Another dodge by alleged abortion foes is the exception for rape and incest. Many politicians throw that in their abortion bans because it sounds only fair to victimized women. But if a fertilized egg represents innocent life, then the circumstances of the conception should not matter.

The pro-choice movement often aids that phony argument by condemning abortion bans with the words, "They don't even allow an exception for rape and incest." Darn right there should be no exceptions.

Democrats like Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth have foolishly helped take states that ban abortion off the hook by offering legislation that would protect IVF services nationwide. No, their politicians should live with the fallout of declaring that an embryo is a baby.

The pro-choice stance should be that a woman has a right to end an unwanted pregnancy early on and for whatever the reason: rape, an unwise night of unprotected sex, failed birth control — no questions asked. Certainly no woman should have to present police evidence that she had been brutally violated.

In the wake of the Alabama ruling, there's been an explosion of memes about listing fertilized eggs as children on tax returns and using a box of chicken eggs to get access to high-occupancy vehicle lanes. They can be pretty funny.

But those who support a constitutional right to abortion should also praise Alabama for stripping away the veils that provide phony exceptions to the protection of embryos.

Alabama has bravely followed through on its position that a fertilized egg is a child. The position may be biologically false and politically dangerous, but give the state credit for honesty.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

EPA Targets Refinery Emissions

EPA Targets Refinery Emissions

By Tony Barboza, Los Angeles Times

Oil refineries would be required to cut emissions and begin monitoring levels of toxic air pollutants at their fence lines with neighboring communities under standards proposed Thursday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The rules would require the nation’s 150 major oil refineries to upgrade pollution controls for storage tanks and reduce emissions from flares, which burn off gases to relieve pressure during startup, shutdown or maintenance. Facilities would have to meet other requirements to reduce emissions that can cause respiratory problems, raise the risk of cancer and contribute to smog.

“This will result in thousands fewer tons of harmful pollutants each year and improve air quality in neighboring communities,” said Janet McCabe, acting head of the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation.

The rules would for the first time require refineries to monitor and publicly report fence-line levels of benzene, a carcinogen they release into the air. The EPA proposal sets limits on concentrations of that compound, considered a marker of a variety of harmful pollutants, and requires companies to take corrective action if readings are too high.

The new standards were proposed under a court-ordered consent decree with national environmental groups and community activists in California, Louisiana and Texas who sued after the EPA missed deadlines to update its rules for refineries under the Clean Air Act.

Those groups largely praised the measures announced Thursday, saying that they would provide new health protections for low-income Latinos and blacks who predominate in neighborhoods next to refineries.

Emma Cheuse, an attorney for Earthjustice, called the proposal “a strong step forward to better protect public health, prevent cancer and provide communities important information they need to protect their families.”

Industry groups say that health risks from refineries are low and that emissions have been declining for decades under existing regulations.

A statement by the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association, said the rules come “with a high price tag but uncertain environmental benefits.”

The EPA, however, said the new requirements “will have no noticeable impact on the cost of petroleum products” while cutting emissions of toxic air pollutants, including benzene, toluene and xylene, by 5,600 tons a year.

The EPA will take public comments on the proposal for 60 days and plans to hold two public hearings, near Houston and Los Angeles, before finalizing the standards in April.

Eric Schaeffer, who directs the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project, said he hoped the restrictions proposed for flares at refineries would eventually be extended to chemical plants and oil- and gas-drilling sites.

Karen Bleier via AFP

ACLU Sues Over Delays For Immigrants Seeking U.S. Protection

ACLU Sues Over Delays For Immigrants Seeking U.S. Protection

By Kate Linthicum, Los Angeles Times

Thousands of immigrants seeking protection in the United States have spent months in detention waiting for the government to determine whether they may have legitimate cases, even though regulations say they should receive a determination within 10 days, according to a class action lawsuit filed Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.

The lawsuit accuses the government of violating the law and says tens of millions of taxpayer dollars have been needlessly spent on detention.

Claire Nicholson, a spokeswoman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said she could not comment on pending litigation.

The case, which was filed in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, pertains to a subset of immigrants who illegally re-entered the United States after previously being deported and who now face deportation again.

Repeat immigration offenders are ineligible for hearings before an immigration judge because of the outcome of their prior cases.

But those who claim they have a fear of persecution or torture if they return to their home countries are guaranteed a hearing with an asylum officer. Government regulations say that within 10 days claimants must receive what is known as a “reasonable fear determination,” which dictates whether they can proceed with a hearing on their application for protection.

The lawsuit filed Thursday alleges the government violated this law in thousands of cases, with individuals waiting in detention for a determination for many months and occasionally more than a year.

One of them is Marco Antonio Alfaro Garcia, a native of El Salvador who was deported at the border while trying to cross into the United States in 2005. He tried again two years later and has lived in the Los Angeles area ever since. He has three American-born children with his partner, who is a U.S. citizen.

In January, Garcia was arrested and charged with driving under the influence. According to the court filings, he was turned over to immigration authorities, who informed him that his 2005 deportation order had been reinstated and he would be returned to El Salvador.

Garcia told the officials that he feared returning because he had been beaten multiple times by police and fears retaliation from a criminal group for providing information to prosecutors.

It took nearly a month for Garcia to get an interview with an asylum officer, according to his lawyers, and he is still waiting for a reasonable fear determination to determine whether he can move forward with his claim. He is entering his fourth month at a federal detention facility in Adelanto, Calif.

His partner, Yeni Gomez, 34, gave birth to their third son while Garcia was in detention. She said she had been selling pupusas on the sidewalk to pay rent.

“It’s really hard to be the mom and the dad at the same time,” she said. “We just want to know an answer as soon as possible. We don’t want to wait.”

The lawsuit, which filed by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, ACLU of Northern California, the National Immigrant Justice Center and the law firm Reed Smith LLP, said government data show the average wait time for a reasonable fear determination is about 111 days.

It claims the division of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services “has foregone any attempt to comply” with the regulations and has instead adopted much longer timelines.

The Obama administration has put a priority on expelling repeat immigration offenders. In 2012, they made up roughly 35 percent of all people deported, according to Department of Homeland Security statistics.

Photo by J Valas images/Flickr