On Monday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order claiming That the US government will only recognize two genders.male and female. The directive claimed that ideologues across the country were denying the “biological reality of sex” that prevented men who identify as women from “accessing intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women.” is allowed.”
In other words, the executive order was put in place as a measure to “defend women” from “sexist extremism.” Amid the chaos, many reproductive rights advocates were quick to point out the proposed definitions of “men” and “women” and the use of the word “concept” in the order.
“‘Female’ means, at conception, belonging to the sex that produces the largest reproductive cell,” the executive order said. “‘Male’ means a person who, at conception, belongs to the sex that produces the minor reproductive cell.”
Referring to the moment of conception, some on social said it could be the start of a move to codify fetal personhood in federal law. In particular, it is scientifically incorrect to say that sex can be determined at conception, to say nothing of the limitations of defining a person solely by gamete size. Chromosomal sex is Fixed At fertilization – a term often associated with conception – the specific moment when the sperm and egg connect. But early embryos of both sexes Start with the same basic structurewhich can later develop into male or female organs. By default, The majority of fetuses are female. For the first five to six weeks, unless certain factors actively stimulate male development.
However, if federal lawmakers grant legal rights to a fetus, or embryo, as a person, that would lead to a national abortion ban, among other far-reaching consequences. As legal experts previously told Salon, the Republican Party released its 16-page “Make America Great Again” policy platform ahead of last year’s national convention, which it said embryos through the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. has supported the states establishing the personality of The language, he said, was “hidden in plain sight.” Could something come out of this executive order that would result in the personhood of the fetus, or is it merely an indication of what to expect?
“One cannot separate the rights of trans people from a broader set of reproductive rights and justice.”
“That’s the least of my concerns,” David S. Cohen, a law professor at Drexel Kline School of Law, told Salon. “The Supreme Court and any other body will not find the personhood of the fetus because of this one provision in this executive order. If the personhood of the fetus is found to be a national imperative, it will have nothing to do with this executive order.”
In the context of presidential election news, Outlined by the Guttmacher Institute. 10 ways a Trump presidency could limit access to reproductive rights When it comes to restricting access to abortion, it likely won’t be through a nationwide abortion ban. Instead, the Trump-Vance administration could take advantage of the Comstock Act, an 1873 anti-vice law that prohibits the mailing of obscene articles used for abortion. As Explained by KFFits literal interpretation could mean that all abortifacient material would be prohibited from being sent. It can affect other medical care, such as abortion management, and can also prevent prescription abortions.
However, Seema Mohapatra, a law professor at the SMU Dedman School of Law, told Salon that when she first read the executive order, what stood out to her the most was the use of the word concept.
Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter Lab Notes.
“Sex is not determined at the time of conception until weeks of the process when the gametes differentiate and it is a very late stage of development so it is scientifically incorrect,” he said. “Then I wonder why they put that language in, and it seems like it’s part of a broader effort to insert the personhood of the fetus into the official record even when it has nothing to do with abortion. “
Mohapatra said he had seen this in court opinions before.
“We have seen this effort in various states in laws and now we are seeing it in executive orders,” Mohapatra added. “One cannot separate the rights of trans people from a broader set of reproductive rights and justice.”
That kind of language “flies under the radar,” he said, but it’s something to watch out for now and in the future.
“What people may not realize is that this anti-trans executive order also affects the personhood of the fetus,” he said. “And I think we’ll see more and more of that in completely unrelated areas.”
Cohen told Salon that it was “absolutely alarming” that the executive order was one of the first things Trump signed.
“He’s going after vulnerable people and trying to say they’re not who they are, threatening their documents that are necessary for travel, health care,” Cohen said. are essential for maintenance.” “It’s definitely very upsetting that this is one of the first things he’s done.”
Cohen added that it’s notable that none of the executive orders were directly related to abortion — but that could change at any moment.
“The story is yet to be written,” he said, “as soon as we get off the phone, there could be an executive order on abortion.” “We just don’t know.”
Read more
About public health
