Childbirth, contraception and abortion 5
This is a continuation of the topic Childbirth, contraception and abortion 4.
Talk Pro and Con
Join LibraryThing to post.
1margd
Court restricts abortion access across the US by blocking the mailing of mifepristone
The Associated Press | May 1, 2026
"... A panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is requiring that the abortion pill {mifepristone} be distributed only in-person at clinics.
Since the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed enforcement of abortion bans, prescriptions by mail has become a major way that abortions are provided — including to states where bans are in place. The decision sets up a likely appeal to the Supreme Court.
... FDA officials under President Donald Trump have repeatedly stated the agency is conducting a new review of mifepristone's safety, at the direction of the president.
The judges noted in their ruling that FDA "could not say when that review might be complete and admitted it was still collecting data."
... Mifepristone was approved in 2000 as a safe and effective way to end early pregnancies. It is typically used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol.
... After Friday's ruling, Danco Laboratories, one of the makers of mifepristone, asked the 5th Circuit to delay its stay by one week. The company asked for time to appeal it to the Supreme Court.
The conservative-majority high court overturned abortion as a nationwide right in 2022 but unanimously preserved access to mifepristone two years later.
That 2024 decision sidestepped the core issues, however, by ruling that the anti-abortion doctors behind the case didn't have legal standing to sue. ..."
https://www.npr.org/2026/05/01/nx-s1-5808328/court-restricts-abortion-access-mai...
The Associated Press | May 1, 2026
"... A panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is requiring that the abortion pill {mifepristone} be distributed only in-person at clinics.
Since the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed enforcement of abortion bans, prescriptions by mail has become a major way that abortions are provided — including to states where bans are in place. The decision sets up a likely appeal to the Supreme Court.
... FDA officials under President Donald Trump have repeatedly stated the agency is conducting a new review of mifepristone's safety, at the direction of the president.
The judges noted in their ruling that FDA "could not say when that review might be complete and admitted it was still collecting data."
... Mifepristone was approved in 2000 as a safe and effective way to end early pregnancies. It is typically used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol.
... After Friday's ruling, Danco Laboratories, one of the makers of mifepristone, asked the 5th Circuit to delay its stay by one week. The company asked for time to appeal it to the Supreme Court.
The conservative-majority high court overturned abortion as a nationwide right in 2022 but unanimously preserved access to mifepristone two years later.
That 2024 decision sidestepped the core issues, however, by ruling that the anti-abortion doctors behind the case didn't have legal standing to sue. ..."
https://www.npr.org/2026/05/01/nx-s1-5808328/court-restricts-abortion-access-mai...
2margd
Congressman Brandon Gill asked advocate Jessica Waters "What’s your favorite abortion method?" in a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing.
National Organization for Women (NOW) 19h (May 9, 2026, Facebook):
"Trigger warning SA {Sexual Assault?} content.
- My favorite type of abortion is the one that prevents a raped ten-year-old from breaking her pelvis in childbirth.
- I also like abortions that keep women from carrying dead fetuses for weeks on end, which is what happened to Marlena Stell in Rep. Gill’s home state of Texas.
- My favorite abortions are the kind that stop women from going septic, or prevent 28-year-olds from losing both of their fallopian tubes.
- Another favorite? The abortion that means a Texas 21-year-old won’t be forced to carry a fetus developing without a head.
- I like the abortion that means a pregnant mother of five with cervical cancer doesn’t have to beg a hospital panel for chemotherapy.
- I like the abortion that doesn’t force a woman to travel far from home when faced with a fatal fetal abnormality.
- I really like the abortion that stops patients from having to plead for help in videos made in hospital parking lots.
- My favorite types of abortions are the ones that allow women to live. Maybe if Candi Miller, or Amber Nicole Thurman, or Tierra Walker had access to abortion, they would still be here.
- My favorite types of abortions are the ones that allow women to go to college.
- My favorite types of abortions are the ones that let women leave abusive relationships.
- My favorite kinds of abortions are the ones that mean women get to choose their own life path, to decide what is best for them, and to figure out if and when they want to start a family.
-My favorite types of abortions are the ones that allow us to meet the person that we’re supposed to be with. My number one favorite abortion is probably the one that allowed me to meet my husband and for us to have our daughter, who is now 15 years old. -Actually, scratch that—my favorite is the abortion that saved my life when my daughter was three, and ensured that she didn't grow up without a mother.
- So Rep. Gill, it is really hard to choose just one favorite type of abortion. There are so many, and they’re all my favorites. Does that answer your question?"
- Jessica Valenti
National Organization for Women (NOW) 19h (May 9, 2026, Facebook):
"Trigger warning SA {Sexual Assault?} content.
- My favorite type of abortion is the one that prevents a raped ten-year-old from breaking her pelvis in childbirth.
- I also like abortions that keep women from carrying dead fetuses for weeks on end, which is what happened to Marlena Stell in Rep. Gill’s home state of Texas.
- My favorite abortions are the kind that stop women from going septic, or prevent 28-year-olds from losing both of their fallopian tubes.
- Another favorite? The abortion that means a Texas 21-year-old won’t be forced to carry a fetus developing without a head.
- I like the abortion that means a pregnant mother of five with cervical cancer doesn’t have to beg a hospital panel for chemotherapy.
- I like the abortion that doesn’t force a woman to travel far from home when faced with a fatal fetal abnormality.
- I really like the abortion that stops patients from having to plead for help in videos made in hospital parking lots.
- My favorite types of abortions are the ones that allow women to live. Maybe if Candi Miller, or Amber Nicole Thurman, or Tierra Walker had access to abortion, they would still be here.
- My favorite types of abortions are the ones that allow women to go to college.
- My favorite types of abortions are the ones that let women leave abusive relationships.
- My favorite kinds of abortions are the ones that mean women get to choose their own life path, to decide what is best for them, and to figure out if and when they want to start a family.
-My favorite types of abortions are the ones that allow us to meet the person that we’re supposed to be with. My number one favorite abortion is probably the one that allowed me to meet my husband and for us to have our daughter, who is now 15 years old. -Actually, scratch that—my favorite is the abortion that saved my life when my daughter was three, and ensured that she didn't grow up without a mother.
- So Rep. Gill, it is really hard to choose just one favorite type of abortion. There are so many, and they’re all my favorites. Does that answer your question?"
- Jessica Valenti
4margd
>3 alco261: I'll ask -- sounds like these were Waters' thoughts after the hearing(?). Kind of jarring to read in terms of "favourites", but she certainly gets at the myriad tough situations that can precede a choice to terminate a pregnancy.
5margd
Alison Gemmill et al. 2025. US Abortion Bans and Infant Mortality. JAMA. 2025 Apr 15;333(15):1315-1323. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2024.28517
Abstract
... Exposure: Complete or 6-week abortion bans ...
Results: The analysis found higher than expected infant mortality in states after adoption of abortion bans (observed vs expected, 6.26 vs 5.93 per 1000 live births; absolute increase, 0.33 ... ; relative increase, 5.60% ... ). This resulted in an estimated 478 excess infant deaths in the 14 states with bans during the months affected by bans. The estimated increases were higher among non-Hispanic Black infants compared with other racial and ethnic groups, with 11.81 observed vs 10.66 expected infant deaths per 1000 live births, an absolute increase of 1.15 ... and relative increase of 10.98% ... The observed infant mortality rate due to congenital anomalies was 1.37 vs 1.24 expected (absolute increase, 0.13 ...; relative increase, 10.87% ...), while the rate not due to congenital anomalies was 4.89 observed vs 4.69 expected (absolute increase, 0.20 ...; relative increase, 4.23% ...). Texas had a dominant influence on the overall results and there were larger increases in southern vs nonsouthern states.
Conclusions: US states that adopted abortion bans had higher than expected infant mortality after the bans took effect. The estimated relative increases in infant mortality were larger for deaths with congenital causes and among groups that had higher than average infant mortality rates at baseline, including Black infants and those in southern states.
Abstract
... Exposure: Complete or 6-week abortion bans ...
Results: The analysis found higher than expected infant mortality in states after adoption of abortion bans (observed vs expected, 6.26 vs 5.93 per 1000 live births; absolute increase, 0.33 ... ; relative increase, 5.60% ... ). This resulted in an estimated 478 excess infant deaths in the 14 states with bans during the months affected by bans. The estimated increases were higher among non-Hispanic Black infants compared with other racial and ethnic groups, with 11.81 observed vs 10.66 expected infant deaths per 1000 live births, an absolute increase of 1.15 ... and relative increase of 10.98% ... The observed infant mortality rate due to congenital anomalies was 1.37 vs 1.24 expected (absolute increase, 0.13 ...; relative increase, 10.87% ...), while the rate not due to congenital anomalies was 4.89 observed vs 4.69 expected (absolute increase, 0.20 ...; relative increase, 4.23% ...). Texas had a dominant influence on the overall results and there were larger increases in southern vs nonsouthern states.
Conclusions: US states that adopted abortion bans had higher than expected infant mortality after the bans took effect. The estimated relative increases in infant mortality were larger for deaths with congenital causes and among groups that had higher than average infant mortality rates at baseline, including Black infants and those in southern states.
6alco261
>4 margd: Given the kind of stain on the bedsheet of life Mr. Gill is I hope these were some of her responses.
7krazy4katz
By the way, abortion bans at 6 weeks were, I believe, predicated on the supposed existence of a fetal heart beat. Actually, although the cells are there that will be part of the heart, and they are beating randomly, they have not yet formed a heart. So the 6-week premise is totally fake. As I am sure all of you know, many women/girls are not even aware they are pregnant at that time. I don't know how long we will have to put up with this tragic restriction on women's rights. I thought we had succeeded and now we are back to the beginning.
8margd
N.C. Republicans Introduce Bill Allowing Men to Kill Women For Using IUDs
Troy Matthews May 25, 2026 9:18 AM EDT
"... The bill calls intent to receive or seek out any procedure that could harm a fertilized egg—which could include abortion, IVF, or even using an IUD birth control implant, since an IUD prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus—attempted murder, while actually terminating the egg would be classified as first degree murder, and could result in the death penalty.
The bill does not offer any protection for women who undergo a procedure to remove an ectopic pregnancy ...
The bill also opens to the door for individuals to claim defense of a human life by killing or harming women who have terminated, or declare their intent to terminate a fertilized egg, in the same manner that killing someone who was in the act of committing murder could be deemed justifiable ... “Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person.”
Such a law would give a green light to abusive partners to murder women and claim it to be justifiable under this law for something as simple as using an IUD.
... The bill has almost zero chance of actually passing, but North Carolina now joins Idaho, Tennessee, Iowa, Georgia, and other states with Republican legislatures that have advocated for extremist anti-abortion laws that not only restrict abortion access, but also target women with violence simply for seeking out basic reproductive healthcare ...
https://meidasnews.com/news/n-c-republicans-introduce-bill-allowing-men-to-kill-...
------------------------------------------------
https://www.scribd.com/document/1043062472/NC-Abortion-IUD-Bill
Troy Matthews May 25, 2026 9:18 AM EDT
"... The bill calls intent to receive or seek out any procedure that could harm a fertilized egg—which could include abortion, IVF, or even using an IUD birth control implant, since an IUD prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus—attempted murder, while actually terminating the egg would be classified as first degree murder, and could result in the death penalty.
The bill does not offer any protection for women who undergo a procedure to remove an ectopic pregnancy ...
The bill also opens to the door for individuals to claim defense of a human life by killing or harming women who have terminated, or declare their intent to terminate a fertilized egg, in the same manner that killing someone who was in the act of committing murder could be deemed justifiable ... “Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person.”
Such a law would give a green light to abusive partners to murder women and claim it to be justifiable under this law for something as simple as using an IUD.
... The bill has almost zero chance of actually passing, but North Carolina now joins Idaho, Tennessee, Iowa, Georgia, and other states with Republican legislatures that have advocated for extremist anti-abortion laws that not only restrict abortion access, but also target women with violence simply for seeking out basic reproductive healthcare ...
https://meidasnews.com/news/n-c-republicans-introduce-bill-allowing-men-to-kill-...
------------------------------------------------
https://www.scribd.com/document/1043062472/NC-Abortion-IUD-Bill
10margd
Plamen Akaliyski et al. 2026. Demographic processes constrain global growth in gender egalitarianism. PNAS Nexus, Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2026, pgag133, https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgag133 https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/5/5/pgag133/8691348 Open Access
Abstract
"... we examine how population-level support for gender equality in the public sphere changed between 1995 and 2022, both globally and across different cultural and socioeconomic contexts. Our results indicate that, although public support for gender equality increased in most countries, it stagnated in the global population as a whole. Moreover, there has been a pronounced and increasing divergence across countries, particularly between Western and non-Western societies. We attribute part of the stagnation in global public support for gender equality to demographically induced compositional effects. Namely, we find that (i) changes in the national composition of the global population have constrained increases in global public support for gender equality; (ii) fertility is higher in countries where average support for gender equality is lower; and (iii) fertility is higher and occurs earlier among women with less egalitarian views. Given that parents typically transmit their gender-related views to their children, higher and earlier fertility among persons with less egalitarian views has likely constrained global growth in gender egalitarianism. ..."
Abstract
"... we examine how population-level support for gender equality in the public sphere changed between 1995 and 2022, both globally and across different cultural and socioeconomic contexts. Our results indicate that, although public support for gender equality increased in most countries, it stagnated in the global population as a whole. Moreover, there has been a pronounced and increasing divergence across countries, particularly between Western and non-Western societies. We attribute part of the stagnation in global public support for gender equality to demographically induced compositional effects. Namely, we find that (i) changes in the national composition of the global population have constrained increases in global public support for gender equality; (ii) fertility is higher in countries where average support for gender equality is lower; and (iii) fertility is higher and occurs earlier among women with less egalitarian views. Given that parents typically transmit their gender-related views to their children, higher and earlier fertility among persons with less egalitarian views has likely constrained global growth in gender egalitarianism. ..."
11margd
A dear one survived postpatrum hemorrhage. MD missed some of the placenta/afterbirth, and so she bled until second MD caught it.
A new blueprint offers definitive solutions to end one of childbirth's deadliest complications
WHO | 12 June 2026
"A landmark Lancet Series definitively estimates that excessive bleeding after birth affects 27 million women, kills nearly 43 000 women every year and costs countries, health systems and families globally over US$ 10 billion each year.
The Series, with lead researchers from HRP (the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction), the World Health Organization (WHO), and University of Oxford amplifies a fundamental shift in how postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) ..."
https://www.who.int/news/item/12-06-2026-a-new-blueprint-offers-definitive-solut...
------------------------------------------
SERIES. Postpartum haemorrhage
The Lancet: June 12, 2026
Executive summary
Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide, occurring in an estimated 27 million women globally every year and causing about 43 000 maternal deaths. Common causes of PPH are uterine atony, trauma, retained placenta, and coagulopathy, with risk heightened by factors including caesarean birth, anaemia, and inadequate antenatal care. As outlined in this three-paper Series, prevention centres on addressing modifiable risk factors for PPH, reducing unnecessary caesarean sections, and administration of uterotonic prophylaxis. Early diagnosis by objective quantification of blood loss and monitoring of vital signs is crucial. Swift treatment following a standardised bundle, and avoiding delays along the management pathway, saves lives...
https://www.who.int/news/item/12-06-2026-a-new-blueprint-offers-definitive-solut...
A new blueprint offers definitive solutions to end one of childbirth's deadliest complications
WHO | 12 June 2026
"A landmark Lancet Series definitively estimates that excessive bleeding after birth affects 27 million women, kills nearly 43 000 women every year and costs countries, health systems and families globally over US$ 10 billion each year.
The Series, with lead researchers from HRP (the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction), the World Health Organization (WHO), and University of Oxford amplifies a fundamental shift in how postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) ..."
https://www.who.int/news/item/12-06-2026-a-new-blueprint-offers-definitive-solut...
------------------------------------------
SERIES. Postpartum haemorrhage
The Lancet: June 12, 2026
Executive summary
Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide, occurring in an estimated 27 million women globally every year and causing about 43 000 maternal deaths. Common causes of PPH are uterine atony, trauma, retained placenta, and coagulopathy, with risk heightened by factors including caesarean birth, anaemia, and inadequate antenatal care. As outlined in this three-paper Series, prevention centres on addressing modifiable risk factors for PPH, reducing unnecessary caesarean sections, and administration of uterotonic prophylaxis. Early diagnosis by objective quantification of blood loss and monitoring of vital signs is crucial. Swift treatment following a standardised bundle, and avoiding delays along the management pathway, saves lives...
https://www.who.int/news/item/12-06-2026-a-new-blueprint-offers-definitive-solut...
12margd
Edited’ human embryos reveal secrets of our development — and fuel ethical debate
Ethical discussions are urgently needed as genome-editing science advances, some researchers say.
Heidi Ledford | 25 June 2026
"... scientists used the method, called base editing, to study human development rather than to explore ways to prevent disease. However, the experiment’s success makes the need for ethical discussions around embryo editing even more urgent, some researchers say.
‘
... a key protein called NANOG plays a part in embryo development that had not been seen in studies in mice.
... Such research has often been swept up in the public debate around gene-editing human embryos to prevent genetic disease or, more controversially, to alter traits such as intelligence. And there has been little progress on deciding when such gene editing would be acceptable, says Joy Zhang, a sociologist at the University of Kent in Canterbury, UK. ...
In the latest study, researchers ... used base editing to disrupt the gene that produces NANOG. The team worked with sperm, eggs, and embryos that were donated for research, and allowed the embryos to develop for only about a week ..."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02027-0
--------------------------------------------
Bower, O.J., R. Orsi, A.E., McMahon, R. et al. Base editing reveals an essential role for NANOG in human embryogenesis. Nature (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10792-1
---------------------------------------------
Statement from the Organising Committee of the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing
Royal Society | 08 March 2023
The Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing, convened by the UK Royal Society, UK Academy of Medical Sciences, US National Academies of Sciences and Medicine, and The World Academy of Sciences, was held to discuss progress, promise, and challenges in research, regulation, and equitable development of human genome editing technologies and therapies.
After listening to three days of thoughtful and inclusive discussion, the members of the Organising Committee offer the following conclusions:
Remarkable progress has been made in somatic human genome editing, demonstrating it can cure once incurable diseases. To realise its full therapeutic potential, research is needed to expand the range of diseases it can treat, and to better understand risks and unintended effects. The extremely high costs of current somatic gene therapies are unsustainable. A global commitment to affordable, equitable access to these treatments is urgently needed.
Heritable human genome editing remains unacceptable at this time. Public discussions and policy debates continue and are important for resolving whether this technology should be used. Governance frameworks and ethical principles for the responsible use of heritable human genome editing are not in place. Necessary safety and efficacy standards have not been met.
Governance mechanisms for human genome editing need to protect ongoing, legitimate research, while preventing clinics or individuals from offering unproven interventions in the guise of therapies or ways to avoid disease.
Somatic human genome editing1
Numerous clinical trials using somatic human genome editing are in progress or soon to be initiated, with preliminary but encouraging results that point to future therapies. The dramatic improvement following CRISPR-based research interventions for sickle cell disease offers hope for patients. Many techniques, including base, prime, and epigenetic editing, may also prove to be useful interventions for a broad range of both genetic and acquired diseases and disorders. However, as with other gene therapies, extended long-term follow-up is essential to fully understand the consequences of an edit and to identify any unanticipated effects, should they occur.
Improved techniques have enhanced the efficiency, precision, and accuracy of the editing process, yet effective delivery and editing remains difficult for many tissues of the body. Further research to diversify and increase the efficiency, specificity, and safety of editing-delivery systems is essential for improving potential treatment options and promoting equitable access.
Equitable access for somatic human genome editing
As interventions based on somatic genome editing become more widespread, a commitment to equitable, financially sustainable, and accessible treatments becomes more urgent. In many cases, costs and infrastructure needs of current gene therapy treatments are not manageable for either patients or healthcare systems. Correcting this will require appropriate planning from the earliest stages of the research and development for each potential application. Ensuring research includes more genetically diverse populations and expanding the range of those who conceive and conduct the research, play a vital role in achieving equitable outcomes.
With sickle cell disease (as well as other genetic diseases), a large percentage of patients live in underserved countries and communities or in settings without adequate infrastructure. Moving from ex-vivo to “one and done” in-vivo somatic human genome editing can partially address this problem. But knowledge transfer between nations, improved clinics and research facilities, and strong oversight are also needed to establish sustainable access to safe interventions for research participants and patients.
Health care systems and the global health community should prepare to provide patients with cost-effective, affordable, proven therapies. Therapies based on somatic genome editing that could help meet these needs should be a priority for research investment.
Human germline genome editing for research (not for reproduction)2
Basic research using genome editing in human embryos has continued, with the aim of either understanding aspects of early human development or exploring how the methods might be used to correct gene variants leading to genetic disorders. There has also been significant progress in basic research on deriving functional gametes from stem cells. Basic research in this field should continue.
Heritable human genome editing
Preclinical evidence for the safety and efficacy of heritable human genome editing has not been established, nor has societal discussion and policy debate been concluded. (In some cases, preimplantation genetic testing is among the alternatives.) Heritable human genome editing should not be used unless, at a minimum, it meets reasonable standards for safety and efficacy, is legally sanctioned, and has been developed and tested under a system of rigorous oversight that is subject to responsible governance. At this time, these conditions have not been met.
Ongoing international collaboration and discussions
The Organising Committee calls for on-going dialogue and continued international collaboration on innovative approaches to governance and regulation of human genome editing technologies, the state of the science, and innovation in the treatment of genetic diseases.
Footnotes
1 Somatic human genome editing refers to the editing of somatic cells, which are non-reproductive cells, and changes made in these cells affect only the person who receives the genome editing.
2 In this statement, germline human genome editing refers to the editing of human embryos or gametes in a research setting, with no plans for those embryos or gametes to be used for human reproduction. Heritable human genome editing refers to the editing of human embryos or gametes to be used for human reproduction.
https://royalsociety.org/news/2023/03/statement-third-international-summit-human...
Ethical discussions are urgently needed as genome-editing science advances, some researchers say.
Heidi Ledford | 25 June 2026
"... scientists used the method, called base editing, to study human development rather than to explore ways to prevent disease. However, the experiment’s success makes the need for ethical discussions around embryo editing even more urgent, some researchers say.
‘
... a key protein called NANOG plays a part in embryo development that had not been seen in studies in mice.
... Such research has often been swept up in the public debate around gene-editing human embryos to prevent genetic disease or, more controversially, to alter traits such as intelligence. And there has been little progress on deciding when such gene editing would be acceptable, says Joy Zhang, a sociologist at the University of Kent in Canterbury, UK. ...
In the latest study, researchers ... used base editing to disrupt the gene that produces NANOG. The team worked with sperm, eggs, and embryos that were donated for research, and allowed the embryos to develop for only about a week ..."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02027-0
--------------------------------------------
Bower, O.J., R. Orsi, A.E., McMahon, R. et al. Base editing reveals an essential role for NANOG in human embryogenesis. Nature (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10792-1
---------------------------------------------
Statement from the Organising Committee of the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing
Royal Society | 08 March 2023
The Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing, convened by the UK Royal Society, UK Academy of Medical Sciences, US National Academies of Sciences and Medicine, and The World Academy of Sciences, was held to discuss progress, promise, and challenges in research, regulation, and equitable development of human genome editing technologies and therapies.
After listening to three days of thoughtful and inclusive discussion, the members of the Organising Committee offer the following conclusions:
Remarkable progress has been made in somatic human genome editing, demonstrating it can cure once incurable diseases. To realise its full therapeutic potential, research is needed to expand the range of diseases it can treat, and to better understand risks and unintended effects. The extremely high costs of current somatic gene therapies are unsustainable. A global commitment to affordable, equitable access to these treatments is urgently needed.
Heritable human genome editing remains unacceptable at this time. Public discussions and policy debates continue and are important for resolving whether this technology should be used. Governance frameworks and ethical principles for the responsible use of heritable human genome editing are not in place. Necessary safety and efficacy standards have not been met.
Governance mechanisms for human genome editing need to protect ongoing, legitimate research, while preventing clinics or individuals from offering unproven interventions in the guise of therapies or ways to avoid disease.
Somatic human genome editing1
Numerous clinical trials using somatic human genome editing are in progress or soon to be initiated, with preliminary but encouraging results that point to future therapies. The dramatic improvement following CRISPR-based research interventions for sickle cell disease offers hope for patients. Many techniques, including base, prime, and epigenetic editing, may also prove to be useful interventions for a broad range of both genetic and acquired diseases and disorders. However, as with other gene therapies, extended long-term follow-up is essential to fully understand the consequences of an edit and to identify any unanticipated effects, should they occur.
Improved techniques have enhanced the efficiency, precision, and accuracy of the editing process, yet effective delivery and editing remains difficult for many tissues of the body. Further research to diversify and increase the efficiency, specificity, and safety of editing-delivery systems is essential for improving potential treatment options and promoting equitable access.
Equitable access for somatic human genome editing
As interventions based on somatic genome editing become more widespread, a commitment to equitable, financially sustainable, and accessible treatments becomes more urgent. In many cases, costs and infrastructure needs of current gene therapy treatments are not manageable for either patients or healthcare systems. Correcting this will require appropriate planning from the earliest stages of the research and development for each potential application. Ensuring research includes more genetically diverse populations and expanding the range of those who conceive and conduct the research, play a vital role in achieving equitable outcomes.
With sickle cell disease (as well as other genetic diseases), a large percentage of patients live in underserved countries and communities or in settings without adequate infrastructure. Moving from ex-vivo to “one and done” in-vivo somatic human genome editing can partially address this problem. But knowledge transfer between nations, improved clinics and research facilities, and strong oversight are also needed to establish sustainable access to safe interventions for research participants and patients.
Health care systems and the global health community should prepare to provide patients with cost-effective, affordable, proven therapies. Therapies based on somatic genome editing that could help meet these needs should be a priority for research investment.
Human germline genome editing for research (not for reproduction)2
Basic research using genome editing in human embryos has continued, with the aim of either understanding aspects of early human development or exploring how the methods might be used to correct gene variants leading to genetic disorders. There has also been significant progress in basic research on deriving functional gametes from stem cells. Basic research in this field should continue.
Heritable human genome editing
Preclinical evidence for the safety and efficacy of heritable human genome editing has not been established, nor has societal discussion and policy debate been concluded. (In some cases, preimplantation genetic testing is among the alternatives.) Heritable human genome editing should not be used unless, at a minimum, it meets reasonable standards for safety and efficacy, is legally sanctioned, and has been developed and tested under a system of rigorous oversight that is subject to responsible governance. At this time, these conditions have not been met.
Ongoing international collaboration and discussions
The Organising Committee calls for on-going dialogue and continued international collaboration on innovative approaches to governance and regulation of human genome editing technologies, the state of the science, and innovation in the treatment of genetic diseases.
Footnotes
1 Somatic human genome editing refers to the editing of somatic cells, which are non-reproductive cells, and changes made in these cells affect only the person who receives the genome editing.
2 In this statement, germline human genome editing refers to the editing of human embryos or gametes in a research setting, with no plans for those embryos or gametes to be used for human reproduction. Heritable human genome editing refers to the editing of human embryos or gametes to be used for human reproduction.
https://royalsociety.org/news/2023/03/statement-third-international-summit-human...
13krazy4katz
Scary but, if properly monitored, could lead to great improvements in human health by correcting birth defects.
14margd
>13 krazy4katz: If culture warriors would take a breath, a consensus position could contain "out there" scientists while allowing society to realize the benefits of correcting congenital defects early on.
15krazy4katz
>14 margd: As a retired biomedical scientist, I agree with you. However, the money used for most of this kind of basic research in this country comes from the government, so we have to deal with who is in control at the moment. Not fun.
16margd
Appeals court overturns order closing Texas midwife clinics accused of illegal abortions
TERRI LANGFORD/The Texas Tribune | July 24, 2026
"A Texas appeals court on Thursday dismissed an injunction that forced a Houston-area midwife to close her clinics, ruling that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ’s office relied solely on an anonymous email as evidence that she violated the state’s 2022 abortion ban.
Paxton’s office secured the injunction last year against clinics operated by Maria Margarita Rosas. She still faces criminal charge that she provided unlawful abortions and employed unlicensed individuals.
But the Texas 15th Court of Appeals, created three years ago by the Texas Legislature to handle major business and state civil cases, found that the trial court erred in granting the injunction because the judge relied only on affidavits from Paxton’s office that didn’t provide direct evidence that the violations occurred.
Justice Scott Field’s opinion said the evidence submitted to support the injunction “does not reasonably support” the claim that abortions were performed at the clinics and the lower court “abused its discretion in granting the temporary injunctive relief.”...
https://apnews.com/article/texas-midwife-clinics-closed-injunction-dismissed-4f8...
TERRI LANGFORD/The Texas Tribune | July 24, 2026
"A Texas appeals court on Thursday dismissed an injunction that forced a Houston-area midwife to close her clinics, ruling that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ’s office relied solely on an anonymous email as evidence that she violated the state’s 2022 abortion ban.
Paxton’s office secured the injunction last year against clinics operated by Maria Margarita Rosas. She still faces criminal charge that she provided unlawful abortions and employed unlicensed individuals.
But the Texas 15th Court of Appeals, created three years ago by the Texas Legislature to handle major business and state civil cases, found that the trial court erred in granting the injunction because the judge relied only on affidavits from Paxton’s office that didn’t provide direct evidence that the violations occurred.
Justice Scott Field’s opinion said the evidence submitted to support the injunction “does not reasonably support” the claim that abortions were performed at the clinics and the lower court “abused its discretion in granting the temporary injunctive relief.”...
https://apnews.com/article/texas-midwife-clinics-closed-injunction-dismissed-4f8...
