In January, Nicholas Yarris walked out of the Pennsylvania prison where he had spent 23 years on death row for the rape and murder of a Philadelphia woman.

Yarris was convicted of the killing in 1983 after police testified that he had confessed to the crime. Yarris denied that claim at trial, and the only physical evidence linking him to the crime was that he (and 20 percent of the population, including the victim’s husband) had the same blood type as the killer.

Recent DNA testing of genetic material found under the woman’s fingernails, on her underwear and in gloves worn by the killer showed they all belonged to the same man, but that man was not Yarris.

According to the ACLU, 112 people in 25 states have been released from death row since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

Source:

State frees death row inmate exonerated by DNA. Dan Nephin, Associated Press, January 16, 2004.

Richard Gladu, Jr. was awarded $108,000 from a Massachusetts fertility clinic whom he sued for allowing his wife to be implanted with a frozen embryo without his consent.

Gladu and his wife, Meredith McLeod, had the frozen embryos created and implanted so that McLeod, who was infertile, could have a child.

But in the mid-1990s the couple had a rocky marriage, eventually ending in divorce. Despite Gladu’s claim that he told his wife he did not want any more children, McLeod returned to the clinic in 1995 to be implanted with the remaining embryos resulting the birth of a girl.

Gladu sued the Boston IVF clinic seeking $3 million in damages for breach of contract. Gladu argued that the clinic had a duty to seek his consent before implanting the embryos.

A jury agreed, though awarded Gladu only $108,000 — $98,000 for the cost of raising the child and $10,000 for emotional distress. The jury did not, however, agree with Gladu’s contention that the doctors involved had acted negligently.

Sources:

Ex-husband sues clinic over birth of daughter. John Ellement and Thanassis Cambanis, Boston Globe, January 15, 2004.

Man gets $108,000 from fertility clinic. Jay Lindsay, Associated Press, January 30, 2004.

In Great Britain, clinics that perform in vitro fertilization are required by law to consider the “need of the child for a father” before allowing women to undergo the procedure. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority recently argued that this requirement is “nonsense” and is proposing to have that provision removed from the law.

Suzi Leather, chairwoman of the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority, said in a speech,

It is absolutely clear if you think about the changes in society and the different ways that families can be constituted that it is anachronistic for the law to include the statement about a child’s need for a father.

It seems to me a bit of nonsense to have that still in the legislation.

The requirement does not appear to prevent single women or lesbians from obtaining IVF. Clinics simply list an alternative father figure such as an uncle or grandfather to comply with the law.

Matthew Mudge, chairman of Families Need Fathers, took issue with the proposal, telling IC Wales,

The whole proposal is sick – there are enough fatherless children around, why should another generation not have fathers?

All the statistics show that tearaway youngsters, generally speaking, come from single parent homes which lack the guiding hand of a father figure, or what I like to call, a benign dictatorship.

The father is generally regarded as the disciplinarian in the nuclear family who teaches the children self-discipline and respect for others.

As a Christian and as a father I find the whole idea repugnant.

The BBC reports that the HFEA is planning a “major review” of this and other requirements that were included as part of Great Britain’s 1990 Human Fertilization and Embryology Act.

Sources:

IVF ‘father figure’ law attacked. The BBC, January 21, 2004.

Fury over call to end IVF father ‘nonsense’. Madeleine Brindley, The Western Mail, January 22, 2004.

The Chicago Maroon — the student newspaper at the University of Chicago — reported in November on a panel at which University of Chicago Law professor Mary Case presented the case for an issue near and dear to her — the need for gender-neutral bathrooms on the university’s campus.

In October 2001, Case made her mark at the University of Chicago with a presentation on “Toilet Paper: Toilets as Gendered Spaces” which, according to the University of Chicago’s Center for Gender Studies, was well-received by the more than 100 people who turned up to hear the presentation.

At a November panel discussion organized by the Center for gender studies, Case complained about the iconography associated with men and women’s restrooms, noting that women’s restrooms are frequently marked with a drawing of a stick figure in a dress. According to Case,

Going into it implies that we are willing to be associated with that image. There are only two [images] to choose from. This moment involves an act of self-labeling.

According to the Chicago Maroon, Case favors leaving the iconography alone, but allowing either sex to choose to use either bathroom.

The administration at the University of Chicago is taking this very seriously. Bill Michel, deputy dean at the University of Chicago, told the Maroon,

I was pleased that the students organized [sic] on open panel discussion to highlight the issues and encourage community discussion on the topic. If we are to make this change it would be in order to meet the needs of members of our community.

In fact, it turns out that the lack of gender-neutral bathroom facilities may present a public health problem. According to the Maroon,

Nate Claxton, another panelist, knew people who had contracted bladder infections because choosing a [sic] gender bathroom bothered them so much that they did not got to the bathroom all day.

Source:

Panel calls for neutral bathrooms. Robert Katz, Chicago Maroon, November 21, 2003.

In October the World Health Organization released its estimates of the continued prevalence of maternal mortality. WHO estimates that worldwide 529,000 women die during childbirth.

Not surprisingly, 95 percent of those childbirth deaths occur in Africa and Asia, while only about 2,500 maternal deaths (less than one percent of the world total) occurred in developed countries.

In the United States, for example, the risk of dying during childbirth was 1 in 2,500. In Sweden it reached an astounding low of 1 in 29,800. But in places like Afghanistan and Sierra Leone, the risk was 1 in 6, while in Angola, Malawai and Niger the risk was 1 in 7.

In the developed world, the lifetime risk of a woman dying during childbirth as 1 in 2,800, while in developing countries it was 1 in 61. For Africa as a whole, the life time risk was 1 in 20.

Not surprisingly, the World Health Organization fond that lack of access to quality medical care was the major cause of most maternal deaths.

Source:

Africa childbirth deaths ‘unacceptable’. The BBC, October 20, 2003.