(June 9, 2017 at 2:51 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Close enough....from your article MH
Quote:Fetal remains disposition.
The bill would restore a measure of dignity to
the remains of aborted fetuses. Current procedures that allow the remains
to be treated as medical waste to be incinerated and disposed of in a
landfill are inappropriate.
Although a similar fetal remains rule promulgated by the Department of
State Health Services (DSHS) has been blocked by a federal district judge,
that ruling is on appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Seems to me that what the Texas Legislature is doing is akin to jerking off. Something they are doubtless pros at!
Not my article but I understand what you meant. I'm not sure what "close enough" means.
I didn't say I agree with the legislation, just that the article was not an accurate reflection of the legislation.
You should probably quote the full paragraph, Quote: "Fetal remains disposition. The bill would restore a measure of dignity to the remains of aborted fetuses. Current procedures that allow the remains to be treated as medical waste to be incinerated and disposed of in a landfill are inappropriate. Although a similar fetal remains rule promulgated by the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) has been blocked by a federal district judge, that ruling is on appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The bill would address concerns the judge expressed about potential costs associated with handling the fetal remains by requiring DSHS to create a registry of the groups that have offered to handle the burial costs and to create a grant program using private donations to offset the costs. The requirements for handling of fetal remains would not apply to a miscarriage that occurred outside of a health facility. The requirements would not impact the ability of a woman to access abortion services. In addition, if a woman was concerned about the religious faith of an organization that might be handling fetal remains, the DSHS registry could provide other options. "
The block and appeal appears to be about the "potential costs" unless I'm reading this wrong.
Personally I think that medical waste is medical waste. If the aborted remains/tissues not being used for medical science then it is medical waste.
If the inaccuracies in the article were unintentional that's poor journalism. If intentional, that's bad journalism. Where does "close enough" fall?
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
