Mae'r ddweud yn ymddiadau a'r gweld i'n gwaith. Mae'n ddodd Dr Cathy Liddell, ac rwy'n ymddiadau o'r Llyfrgellfa Llyfrgellol Llyfrgellol, Llyfrgellol Llyfrgellol i'r meddwl a Llyfrgellol. Yn ymddiadol i'r Llyfrgellol, y Llyfrgellol i'r Llyfrgellol a Llyfrgellol, rwy'n ymddiadau i'n gweithio i'w gweithio i'r 2018 Llyfrgell Dylanzi. Rwy'n gallu i'w, oherwydd, yn ymddir i'w rhaid i ddweud i'r dŵr, ydw i'n rhaid i ddim yn ymweld i'u argyrchu yn unrhyw yng Nghymru o'r Llyfrgellol, yn unrhyw o'r unrhyw o'r ddweud i'w ddweud i'w ddweud i'r Llyfrgellol, a'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'u ddweud i'u ddweud i'u ddweud i'u ddweud, Mae'r ffordd yn ystod o'r ffordd yn ymddiolio'r ffordd. Mae'n ffordd yn ystod o'r ffordd. Mae'n hynny'n gweithio, ac yn fawr, y ffordd y Llyfrgellol Llyfrgell yn ddiwyddiadol o'r Ffyrddol Llyfrgell i ddwylliannol a'u ffordd yn ysgrifennu i'r ddwylliant a'u ddwylliant i'r llaw oeddiadol a'r ddwylliant. Mae'n ddwylliant yn ysgrifennu bydd yn ysgrifennu oeddiw'r llwyth i 1970, o'r cefnodi am Barun Verhaeden, Delansey. Tadw o'r parwydiau sy'n mynd i'ch ddechrau i gyflaenio mae'r ddiweddol yn ystod o'r newid o'r newid, dr Charlotte Ritter i'r dr Baz van Ulverkack. Ond oedd y ddau sy'n ffaith ffasdr i gyflaenio, sy'n mynd i'n gwybod i gyflaenio i'r ffasdr yn Yurell, ond byddai'n gwybod i'n gydig yn gwybod. Yn gweithio i'r gweithio hynny yn dyn nhw, ac mae'n gael i gael i gael i'r gweithio'r gweithiau, neu'r ddau. Dr Ritter yn ysgolio'r gweithio'r baron, mae'r gwirio'r gwirio'r gwirio'r gweithio, ac mae'n rhaid i'r bwysig o ddau'r baron i gael i'r bwysig i'r bwysig i'r bwysig. Mae'n amser o'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r ddau'r bwysig, ychydig i'w cyfnodd, ymddangos, y llyfr yma, y cyfnodd gyhoedd y lawr hwnnw, a'r cefnodd arfer. Felly, ar hyn o'r cyfrifysio'r cyfrifysio cyfrifysio gyda'r cyfrifysio. Byddwyd e'n gyfrifysio ar gyfer y llyfr, ac byddwyd e'n gweithio'r cyfrifysio clywydol o'r cyfrifysio cyfrifysio. Daeth hefyd yn ychydig iddo, a'r llawd yn gweithio'r cyfrifysio, ac mae'n ddau'n ei ddweithio'r cyfrifysio. As we are a relatively new centre, this is the second year that we have had the opportunity to organise the Barron's lecture. But the series has had a long history of distinguished speakers. I won't give you the full list, but just by way of example, the first Barron-Delance lecture that I attended was given by Dame Elizabeth Butler Sloss, who was then the President of the Family Division of the Court of Appeal. She talked about recent cases on life and death in the courts. In 2011, from the sciences, we had Professor Sir Peter Luckman, who talked about the effect of tort law and regulation on pharmaceutical supply. In particular, the chilling effect he thought that the law had on the supply of new innovative medicines. In 2016, the first year that LML organised the Barron-Delance lecture, our invitation was accepted by Mr James Badenock QC, who spoke about the case he litigated before the UK Supreme Court, which changed the judicial requirements of informed consent in clinical negligence. Tonight, our subject is the future of reproductive technology. We are delighted that our friend and distinguished speaker, Professor Glenn Cohen, has agreed to give the lecture. Glenn is a professor of law at the other great Cambridge faculty of law, namely Harvard Law School. He is also the director of the Petrie-Flong Centre for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics. His work covers a vast area from the failures to protect the health of NFL players, to the ethics of a system for purchasing kidneys, and the legal issues of health tourism. Pretty much everything in between. Such bread is rarely paralleled, but what I always find most remarkable is Glenn's razor sharp ability to reorganise each and every field of thinking. He tackles. And no doubt that is what we will also witness tonight. Glenn, thank you and the floor is yours. I should always ask ahead of time how I advance the slides. Hopefully there's a button. Let's see if it's going to be intuitive. Oh, that's pretty intuitive. I can handle that. Well, thank you very much for having me. I have nothing to disclose. Good news. You know, I give a lot of talks in a year, and I'll tell you the truth, I enjoy every single one of them, but rarely have I felt so honoured as I do tonight. A huge thank you to my friends at LML, to the Delancey Foundation for putting this together and sponsoring this. I'm the child of two people who are dropouts from high school. Neither of my parents finished high school.  Okay, now down to business, and I'll try to keep it a little fun. Many of you in the audience are undoubtedly parents. Many of you in the, all of you in the audience are certainly children, right? So you've gone through that experience. We have that in common. When a child asks a parent, where do babies come from? At one point in history, the answer was pretty straightforward and easy. You'd say, when a daddy loves a mommy, and then, you know, maybe you give more or less details depending on how you handle it. Then it got a little more complicated. Sometimes it was a mommy doesn't have a daddy, and she, okay, so that was a little bit more complicated. But it's never been quite so complicated as it is today, potentially. You might utter sentences like, well, when two daddies love each other very much, and then they found another mommy from a catalogue who would donate an egg. And then daddy's first cousin agreed to be the surrogate, right? It's quite complicated, and I'm going to tell you it's about to get more complicated. So I want to start in Act 1 by talking about the progression at a technological level, and we're going to call that the technological imperative. We're then in Act 2 going to talk about legal and political theory and whether it can help us to struggle with these dilemmas. And finally, we're going to talk about the state and justification for restricting regulatory, restricting reproductive freedoms. Okay, so let's start with Act 1, the imperative. So once upon a time, coital sex was the main way to produce children. But infertility of the male or female kind has been around just as long as for a very long time in our evolutionary history. One of the most poignant depictions is actually in the Old Testament where Sarah is unable to conceive and first attempts a kind of surrogacy, slash adoption, slash extramarital approach with Abraham, inseminating her maid Hagar and producing Ishmael. And then she's the first woman to pursue a miracle cure, many would try to find that miracle cure afterwards, here with a very good doctor called Hashem, right God, who cures her infertility and she produces her own son Isaac. This is Matias Storm's 1638 depiction of those very events. The classic story really captures quite a lot the pain and sadness of infertility in a world where genetic reproduction is the norm. The strong social preference for genetic reproduction over adoption. The way in which these technologies will bend the family form, but ultimately society will try to assimilate them into a form of nuclear family. Medical rather than religious attempts to cure infertility begin very early in recorded history, at least as far back as Hippocrates' use of Egyptian inspired recipes containing rednider, cumin, resin and honey to try to open up the cervix of infertile women. So I want to start by talking about modern assisted reproductive technologies, but I'm going to call them old school, new school reproductions. We'll see there's an even newer school reproductive technologies around the corner. So you know this began really with the invention of the microscope in the 1600s, which allowed the visualization of sperm and therefore an understanding of its role in fertilization. This development led to the first artificial insemination of dogs in 1780 in Italy by the priest Lazaro Spalanzani and then in humans in 1785 by the Scottish surgeon John Hunter. Artificial insemination using donor sperm first occurred in 1884 by the doctor William Pankos in Philadelphia. Modern medicine has added a number of methods of treating infertility. For our purposes though, one of the most important methods is in vitro fertilization, IVF, which was first successfully used here in England in 1978 to produce Louise Brown. IVF proceeds in several stages. First, the woman will provide eggs as administered ovulation stimulating hormones, which cause multiple egg containing follicles to be cured so that she can deliver up to several dozen eggs that can be harvested in a single treatment cycle. Then just prior to ovulation, the eggs are removed by a minor surgical procedure. Third, sperm is introduced into the individual culture dishes, each of which contains a culture medium and one egg and monitored to determine if fertilization occurs. Finally, if it's successful, the early embryo, sometimes called the pre-embryo, is allowed to mature in the medium where in summer all of them will be transferred into women's uterus to try implantation. Sometimes this is combined with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, PGD, where we biopsy a cell from the early embryo to assist in determining whether it's the best embryo to implant. IVF is very expensive.  It also carries some health risks, a low risk, but a risk of ovarian hypostimulation syndrome. It may not be the same woman whose eggs are harvested who will ultimately carry the baby, and in surrogacy we actually have two individuals involved. In the case of traditional surrogacy, which is hardly practiced these days at all, a man artificially inseminates a woman such that she serves both as the gestational and the genetic mother of the child. In gestational surrogacy, by contrast, gestational surrogacy carrying the child is combined with IVF, such that the egg may come from the woman who intends to rear the child. Either the rearing mother is, or there's another woman who serves as an egg donor, or another man who serves as a sperm donor, or as in a very complicated case from California called Moschetta, all of the above. There can be a sperm donor, an egg donor, a commissioning and would-be rearing mother, a rearing father, and a gestational surrogate for a grand total of five separate people involved in that reproduction. Imagine answering, where did I come from to that child? All of this while quite amazing in the longer scope of human history is today old hat to us. We're very familiar with these technologies. But I'm going to take you to the now and near future to talk about what is cutting edge and the dilemmas you may not have encountered in a family law class or a medical law class. First one, uterine transplants. The birth of a child after a uterus transplant from a living donor occurred for the first time in Sweden in October 2013. And it's for reproductive and transplant physicians in Europe and North America to investigate whether uterus transplants, either from living or catedveric donors, yes, that's right, from a deceased donor to take the uterus and bring life from it, might become a more common occurrence. We've got trials going on in Boston and Cleveland Clinic right now. And the first birth occurred several months ago at Baylor University in Texas in the United States, the first U.S. birth. The main clinical indication is uterine factor infertility, women who were born without a uterus lost their uterus or their uterus no longer functions. The intended mother's eggs will be removed and fertilized through IVF, then they'll look for a uterus donor. Most of the protocols in the U.S. are for catedveric donor, but it could also be a living donor and that's what occurred at Baylor. Once a donor is found, the recipient goes on immunosuppressive drugs and a uterus is transplanted onto her pelvis. After a few months, she'll start having her period and within 12 months of transplant of the uterus will hopefully be healed enough that she can take the embryos for implantation. She'll undergo pregnancy with a C-section delivery and then undergo a hysterectomy after one to two child births to remove the donor uterus. Once it's removed, she can go off the immunosuppressive drugs, which is good for her overall health. In the Baylor case, the donor was a woman named Sylar, a registered nurse mid-30s. She had two boys aged six and four already, and she just read in the newspaper of the hospital about this transplant program. She says, quote, I have family members who struggle to have babies and it's not fair. I just think that if we can give more people that option, that's an awesome thing, unquote. She went through an extensive screening about her physical and mental health before getting approval for the trial. Her surgery in about 12 weeks of recovery, the surgery is about five hours for the living donor and another equivalent amount of time for the recipient. There's a number of very interesting legal and ethical issues that I want to have you think about and we'll talk more about during the Q&A. Is this really an option we should be supporting? I mean, it's amazing that science can do this, but is this really something we should be pursuing? How important is pregnancy as opposed to genetic motherhood through surrogacy? Should we be willing to allow women to take the risks of transplants that is not strictly speaking medically necessary? Should the state pay for it? Would you have the NHS pay for this as it would a kidney transplant? Doesn't matter whether surrogacy is a legal and available alternative, given this involves more risk to the woman who receives the transplant than surrogacy would. By contrast, if surrogacy is available, or if this is available, would it be unethical to use a surrogance since you are then potentially placing another woman at risk rather than carrying the child to yourself? Should we consider living rather than cadaveric donors? Is it a positive thing if, as in some of the cases in Sweden, mothers donate their uteruses to their daughters with uterine factor infertility? In such a case, a uterus donated by a woman to her daughter to produce a child, do we consider the uterus donor just the grandmother? Is she the grandmother slash uterine mother? Something else? What if any legal status should attach to the grandmother in this case? Should she have the rights of a surrogate, for example, to change her mind, to withdraw the transplant? What happens if there's parenting disputes? Going further into the future, this technology might allow transgender people with male sex assigned at birth or even regular men to bear children. That is, we might be able to graft a uterus on a male pelvis or some other part of the body. I know the men in the room are getting a little bit nervous when I'm saying this because they've watched pregnancy on TV at least in their own lives. Would that be a wonderful thing? Think about a quality of the sexes if we could do that. Or is that a terrible idea? To the state pay for that if, as a man, you say I've seen this beautiful mystery of pregnancy and birth and I've seen all of this and I want to experience it myself. Is that a rights claim you have against the state? Second technology, mitochondrial replacement therapy, MRT. Mutant mitochondrial DNA gives rise to a broad range of heritable clinical syndroms. Some dispute in literature about how prevalent it is. The UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the HFEA, claims that it's about 1 in 200 children who's born each year. Others think it's more like 1 in 5,000. The disease of the mitochondria appear to cause the most damage to cells, a brain, a heart, liver, skeletal muscles, kidney, endocrine and respiratory systems. Truly terrible for the children who are born with these diseases. There's no cure. But we've recently developed a technology pioneered here in Newcastle in the UK that's raised the prospect of disease free progeny for women carriers. Mideocondrial replacement therapies constitute a family of technologies that seek to prevent the transmission of the mutant mitochondrial DNA from carrier mother to the child. The embryos so created comprise nuclear DNA from the intended mother and non-pathogenic MT DNA from another woman whom we call the mitochondrial donor. As such, MRTs allow a woman at risk to be the genetic mother of the resulting child, at least in terms of the vast majority of that child's DNA. The two forums, maternal spindle transfer, pronuclear transfer, I'm not going to go into the details here. In the UK, legislation enabling the performance and clinical application MRT was ten years in the making and approved by the House of Commons and the House of Lords in 2015. The HFEA is now empowered to provide clinical licenses to allow the use of these technologies. In the US where I come from, the story is quite different. We were in the midst of a review by the Institute of Medicine, National Academies of Medicine, requested by our FDA, our drug authority. When Congress acted to preemptively block this technology. And here's where I'll pander a little bit to my crowd here in the UK and say how much I admire the HFEA Parliament and your public consultation and the Nofield Council on these topics. But don't get too comfortable. Towards the end of the talk I will blast the UK and your approach on child welfare. So it's coming.  So our National Academies would have liked to see an approach like the UK, maybe a little bit more restrictive. They said that they were okay with MRT going forward subject to several conditions including establishing initial safety, minimizing risk, establishing efficacy through in vitro, animal and other testing. Limiting clinical investigation to cases where women would transmit serious mitochondrial DNA disease. And interestingly, limiting gestation to male only embryos and the reason was to prevent any germline transmission. They also wanted to use non viable embryos to develop the science when possible and use only the smallest and least developed viable human embryos when it's not. As well as doing long term follow up studies on the psychological and physical health of children born through MRT. One of the realities of the US prohibition is that we've now engendered a huge amount of medical travel and medical tourism. A topic I wrote a book about in 2015. Because of the lack available in the United States we've had people doctors from the US go to Mexico to perform the technology for a Jordanian family actually. And if there's more MRT and children in question will allow likelihood of living in the United States and thereby potentially bring it to pass that which is feared, which again is this transmission of mutant mitochondrial DNA. The transmission I should say of the corrected DNA. So in terms of the legal and ethical issues, one is just safety. How do you ever know when a technology like this is ready for prime time? If you go back to 1978 to IVF, how do we really know that IVF was ready to produce children? There's always going to be this moment of a leap to first in humans. There's this question about crossing the germline redline, the idea that germline modification of the human genome is something we must never do. Among the most vocal opponents on this score was Marcy Darnowsky, who in nature wrote that she was putting a high-tech eugenic social dynamic into play. Lots of thoughts on this, we can talk a little bit about it later today. But my own sense is that I'm not terribly upset by the idea that this is eugenics, where I'm query what that means. I'm not particularly bothered by this form of eugenics if what it means is that children are born healthy rather than with mitochondrial disorders. There's a question about anonymity and parentage. So in the US we don't have a requirement as you do in this country that sperm donors and egg donors put their names in a registry available to children aged 18. In this country you do, but interestingly Parliament exempted the mitochondrial donor from this requirement. So you as a donor conceived child cannot go ahead and find out who your mitochondrial donor was. Even though technically speaking we call this three parent IVF and the mitochondrial donor is giving a very small percentage of the DNA to the child. Nonetheless you might say without that donor I would not come into existence. I want to know the story of where I came from. This person is an essential part of that drama and to push your buttons a little bit. If this country believes so much in the right to know your genetic heritage, the right to know your genetic parents, why don't we allow them to know their identity of the mitochondrial donor? Maybe it should be a percentage, maybe you could get like a percentage of the mitochondrial DNA, the same percentage of information about that person. I imagine like from Solomon Rushdie's, Midnight's Children, moving the veil and seeing just a tiny little bit of the person each time you diagnose them. So maybe just the eye colors or maybe just this much. In any event we haven't gone there in this country. I think most interesting is the question of mandatory sex selection. Essentially the FDA recommended or the IOM I should say recommended that we have mandatory sex selection.  So that's a very interesting question. Could or should the state be allowed to mandate sex selection in a particular case? The other instance is mostly with sex link disorders where they do recommend and do permit sex selection. But that's to protect the child themselves. So the child does not develop syndrome or a disorder. Here you're not doing it for the sake of the child but some high abstract concept of the gene pool and concern about the propagation of a particular genetic change. Should we find that I have a whorrent to mandate sex selection, would it be against the law? One more technology. That is in vitro gamata genesis. It's the generation of eggs and sperm from pluripotent stem cells in a culture dish. And I'm particularly worried about talking about this one because we have one of the Nobel Prize winners who's work is essential for this later technology in the room with us today. So I'm going to tread lightly and not talk too much about the science here. But I'm showing you Hikabe's nature's paper in mice and the potential future successes in human beings is a possibility. So to simplify the science a lot, a lot, a lot. You can take adult cells like human skin cells. You can induce them towards pluripotency. And from that you can create sperm or egg for reproduction. Translate to the non-scientists. I could take the water that I leave on this cup after drinking this water, which I will between now and the next slide. I could take the saliva or part of my body or skin cell I leave on this cup. See how I worked that in. And then I needed a bit of water, it was a good time. And then what I can do is I can take that cell and I can induce it to become sperm or egg. And then you can produce a baby from this. And if I just happen to leave this year, it's possible you could produce my genetic child from this.  So IVG may enable prevention of mitochondrial diseases. Indeed, patient-specific IPSC-derived oocyte selected for their low burden of mutant MTDNA could yield disease-free progeny. The availability of fully functional gametes of IPSC origin may transform the current IVF paradigm by eliminating the need for stimulating the ovaries and retrieving eggs. In so doing, IVG may also phase out the occasional morbidity and mortality women suffer from ovarian hypostimulation. Similarly, we may not need donor eggs anymore. Wouldn't that be wonderful? No need for egg donors. Much would depend on whether IVG could ever become affordable enough to be used as a current technology and thus enhanced access to advanced infertility therapy. Given the high price of IVF, that may be unlikely. Some in the bioethics legal and public press have speculated further. The scientists tend not to like the speculation, but I'll share it, that IVG may one day permit same-sex partners who seek to have a child who shares both parents' genetic heritage. With one producing the sperm and one producing the egg, even though they are of the same sex. Or possibly enable single women to conceive offspring of a single parentage based on their own. Lots of legal and ethical issues. This is my friend Hank Realy's excellent book, The End of Sex, on aversion of this topic. Any clinical use of IVG raises several regulatory and ethical questions. First, refining the science to a point where it's usable will mean the generation and likely destruction of huge numbers of embryos. From stem cell derived gametes. IVG might also increase our chances of commodification of the human body. Giving the up possibility of creating mass numbers of embryos, biop seeing all of them a thousand and choosing the best one. Imagine if you had an unlimited ability to produce eggs and sperm for a child. Would you not be tempted to use that towards enhancement? Especially if that production is combined with gene editing CRISPR-Cas9. But we really can potentially in the future, and I think it's far in the future, but potentially in the future, move to a situation where enhancement becomes rapid. Fourth, IVG increases the risk of unauthorized use of biometrics. Absent, explicit consent. In the most extreme case, imagine an individual using someone else's loft skin cells to derive gametes for reproductive purposes. Should the law criminalize that action? If it takes place, should the law consider the source of the skin cells, me on this cup? The father, a legal parent who has child support obligations or has a right to make family decisions? So far, courts have had very little experience with non-consensual parenthood, but the cases they have had involving intoxication where consent was inappropriate, involving statutory rape of young boys, actually. There are cases like this that produce child. In all of those cases, they essentially hold, at least in the States, that the boy is the father of the child and has legal obligations. Should we follow that pattern in thinking about this truly non-consensual form of parenthood? Finally, IVG's most disruptive impact may be on our very conception of parentage. Artificial insemination, IVF surrogacy, they've all allowed us to unbundle genetic gestational legal parenthood to some extent. But here we're talking about a much more radical unbundling. Again, scientific literature has not yet proven feasibility, but there's this possibility that's so-called multiplex parenting, where one gamion is derived from two individuals or three individuals or five individuals. So imagine five genetic parents, apart from rearing parents, apart from surrogates and the like. Would we view each of those as an equal parent, or would we want to apportion parentage rights, maybe days of custody, based on the percentage of genetic material they contribute? What happens when you're trying to decide what university to send the child to? Do you have to do them all in the room and is there a consensus rule, or is it just the loudest shout or the person who's going to pay for it? Is that how you decide? Should what extension of the law respect a contractual agreement between these people to allocate parental rights and parental responsibilities? The situation becomes so more complex if we mix together this technology with surrogacy or with adoption and the like. So thus ends Act 1, some combination of wonder, disgust, and confusion. That's at least what I'm going for. Now we're ready for Act 2. Can political theory or legal theory help us, some framing attempts? In terms of disruption, we broadly think of the preceding cases as presenting two kinds of disruption. One is actually disruption of the outcome in terms of family form. The other is the disruption of method in terms of the way in which it comes about. One focuses us on the family that results and that family could have resulted through non-reproductive technologies, single parenthood, same-sex parenthood. That can happen without reproductive technologies through divorce and remarriage in single parenthood. The other focuses more on the ills of the technology themselves. The question about whether it promotes something like an incorrect attitude towards parenthood, whether it is promoting embryo destruction, et cetera, et cetera. So here's a set of distinctions that I think might be particularly helpful when thinking about selective funding and more positive rights to healthcare in this space. The question of what should the state fund? That is the distinction on the one hand between mimics and extenders and on the other hand between the infertile and the disfertile. So let me say a little bit more about those distinctions. Mimics seek to use reproductive technology to achieve that which others are able to achieve through coital forms of reproduction. When infertile women use IVF and infertile men use AID to achieve what their fertile brothers and sisters can achieve coital. By contrast extenders use reproductive technologies to achieve that which is not attainable by anyone without the use of these technologies. Gene editing to have children with longer lives. IVG to have children with five or six parents. That's what I mean when I think about extension. And this is kind of a cousin, if you will, to the treatment enhancement distinction. Mimics seek treatment, extenders seek enhancement. Now none of these distinctions are perfect sorters, so take MRT for example. Is that a case of mimicry? A woman who wants to have a genetically related child just like other women? Or is it a case of extension involving a third party, a third genetic parent in reproduction? Which line matters which are intending to do with the consequence of the genetic line, the biological line or what the family formation looks like? But while not perfect these distinctions can on the left be helpful in thinking about the state's positive obligations to provide assistance. And let me talk about the second distinction which is infertile versus disfertile. Infertility is a medical condition, right? It is a medical diagnosis which prevents you from being able to reproduce. Disfertile individuals suffer from a form of social infertility. Their biology works fine but they suffer from no disease but their biology is such that their current social arrangement does not permit reproduction. They are a single individual. They are a same-sex couple for example. So one way of putting this question is in which of these boxes, if this is a two by two, which of these boxes are the ones the state ought to pay for? So it depends a lot on your theory of health, what the right to health extends to. So on a purely consequentialist theory health isn't important, indeed one of the most important things that promote our welfare, but there's nothing in particular special, there's no special importance to health as a moral matter. It's just merely one contributor to welfare. And for that these distinctions don't seem to matter too much. What really matters is how much welfare would we get for how much cost. So the economist for example might do a quality adjusted life here per dollar analysis and support the technologies that have the highest value, avoid the ones that have the lowest. Other theories though attach a special importance to health. They then have to wrestle whether the question of what kinds of reproductive assistance are health assistance as opposed to other kinds of benefits. So Martha Nussbaum writing from an Aristotelian perspective talks about the idea that we have capabilities. The state has an obligation to further our capabilities and enable human flourishing. She describes one of these capabilities, bodily health, as being able to achieve a good health including reproductive health to be adequately nourished to have adequate shelter. And another bodily integrity as having choice in matters of reproduction. Norman Daniels, my now retired colleague, has a much more role in view of the matter.  He would say the state's role, the state's obligation is to give you access to the quote, normal opportunity range, unquote. That is to enable you to pursue an array of life plans reasonable persons are likely to develop from themselves. And from this he says reasonable people, a normal life plan includes reproduction. Therefore the state has an obligation to pay for infertility just as it would for a kidney disease, Ebola or whatever have you. Both these views but in particular the Daniels view have something useful to say about these categories. The concept of a normal opportunity range by definition seems to count in support for mimics but not extenders. Extenders want something more than that which is part of the normal opportunity range, the species typical function. They want to be atypical of the species. They want more than what the species can do. Perhaps more controversially, I think suggesting drawing a line between the infertile and the disfertile on this view. Only the infertile are making claims for the state to respond them to species typical normal functioning. The disfertile are already usually there. Though query how to treat the claim of a lesbian who also happens to suffer from female factor infertility. Would we say she is infertile, disfertile or both? Now this result is not inevitable. We could reinterpret the normal opportunity range which is meant to enable us to pursue life plans reasonable persons are likely to develop in a non-biological sense. In that way we would say what is sought as parenthood not biological functioning. But doing so raises another interesting tension is the goal of the state and the goal of the healthcare system parenthood, simplicity or genetic parenthood. That is suppose the state were to say I have satisfied my obligation to you by giving you a wide range of support and availability of adoption options. Would we say that that is a healthcare obligation being satisfied or must the state go further? And to take it a little bit further think about my uterine transplant case. Imagine a woman has another woman willing to serve as the surrogate. We can pay for her IVF and we do.   But she says I want to experience pregnancy. I want to experience gestational motherhood. Do we think her right to health extends to that case to the experience of pregnancy? Is that the kind of thing she ought to be able to make a claim on the NHS for? And of course taking it to the reductio in this would be to say imagine there's a woman who just wants to experience the pregnancy. She has no interest in rearing the child. She has no interest in genetic parenthood. But she is the sister of someone who has uterine infertility and says oh I have uterine infertility too but you don't all carry that child for me. NHS you give me that uterus transplant not so I could have my own child that is one that I will rear but to be a surrogate for someone else. That is the reproductive desire I have. Is that the kind of thing that a right to health care extends? Is that species typical functioning? Most people don't want to experience pregnancy. I mean I don't understand most people but parts of pregnancy having spent a number of months with pregnant women I can tell you there are elements having experienced with myself yeah waiting for that pelvic transplant but I can tell you having experienced and spent a lot of time with pregnant women there are many things that are beautiful and wonderful with pregnancy. Lots of days it just suck though by the way right but imagine someone says I would really like to experience this right? Is that a reproductive aim or reproductive goal that they ought to be able to satisfy? Thinking a little bit more now about the negative side here negative liberty side that is your right against state interference here's a set of distinctions I found useful in earlier work I've done about a decade ago now and that is to say natural reproduction bundles gestational genetic and legal parentage but it need not be so. We could in fact unbundle it and reproductive technologies let us see that in fact there are actually six rights involved in most decisions about say an abortion that is a right to be a gestational parent to be a genetic parent to be a legal parent that is a right to continue pregnancy on the other hand a right not to be a gestational parent a genetic parent and a legal parent that is a right by somebody who seeks to have an abortion now it's interesting about reproductive technologies is that while these are all together right we parcel them together in the case of natural reproduction they can actually be assigned to different people in the case of reproductive technologies such as we can have conflicts between them so imagine that a husband and wife undergo and reach a fertilization they cry or preserve pre embryos imagine that they have an agreement saying that in the event of divorce the wife would be able to implant the pre embryos the couple divorces and the wife wants to use the pre embryos but the husband opposes that imagine further for the purpose of this hypothetical that under these circumstances the jurisdiction says if the wife implants the pre embryos the husband will not be made the legal parent of the child unless he consents and in case you think this is far fetched this is the exact law and legal question for the Colorado Supreme Court right now as argued about a month ago or two months ago the husband in such a case is saying I have a right not to be a genetic parent I'm not going to be a gestational parent he doesn't have to carry the child I'm also by dint of the law to be a legal parent all I'm going to be is a genetic parent but I have a right not to be that genetic parent on the flip side the woman would like to assert her right to be a gestational parent a genetic parent and a legal parent by using the embryos right this unbundling of the rights helps us see what's at stake many other examples I could give you where this is useful but I want to suggest to you is it suggests that the task of the state and the task of the political theorist the legal theorist is to answer two questions first at least two which of these rights actually exist as a doctrinal matter as a normative matter in terms of what ought to exist and second if more than one of these rights exist what is the system of lexical priority that I will apply in determining when they come into conflict or is it at the level of principle lexical priority of rights or is it much more particularized do I think for example as in the Evans case that a case where a woman has no further options reproductively because of a variant answer for example is that different from a case where a woman could use her own eggs to reproduce in another occasion so I think this is a helpful recipe in thinking about the negative liberty just as I think the prior slide is a helpful recipe in thinking about the positive liberty so in this act we see that while these cases are challenging that I presented to you legal and political theory can at least help us somewhat to frame and narrow the disputes now we are ready for the last act of a verification in the state so in the ordinary course of things the technological imperative results in an existence of a market in reproductive technologies reproductive desires meet technological progress and entrepreneurial opportunity to always push the boundaries but of course the state has a role in setting limits how a wengent state should do so is the question for this act and I don't mean to prejudge the idea that the state is sinister by showing this gentleman over here if there happens to be some subliminal point I mean I don't know it's okay that that happened so let's talk about the role of the state here okay so first it's important to understand the state has several means to influence our reproductive activities and here I've listed them from the most intrusive to the least intrusive physical alteration according to theory requires sterilization as we do by order for some parts of the population criminal prohibition we prohibit brother sister incest by law we prohibit gamete sale in some places we also prohibit sperm donor anonymity immutable or default status determination so rules for example about when a known sperm donor will not be held to be a father the unenforceability of contracts we can make a contract for a particular reproductive arrangement like surrogacy enforceable or not selective funding we can choose to fund IVF only for married people but not single people only for heterosexuals but not gay people and finally information provision we can just try to the gentlest nudge try to convince people to do things different and my favorite example here is actually abstinence education very popular in some parts of the United States we try to control when people reproduce by having curricula that tell them they should wait till marriage okay there's a series of justifications that goes up so the demandingness of the reason we might need to justify it will go up as well so here are some basic categories in law and in philosophy the first is the harm principle the act of reproduction is to be regulated for harm it will do to third parties either harm to the child that I'll call best interests of the resulting child BIRC or harm to other third parties that I'll call reproductive externalities paternalism the act of reproduction is to be regulated because it goes against the true deep interest of the reproduces or participants so for example the surrogate or the egg dog we want to protect them legal moralism or virtue ethics two separate but related ideas the first is what Joel Feinberg called legal moralism in the narrow sense the use of criminal law to deter acts which neither harm nor offend but undermine public morality we have a conception a traditionalist conception what the family should look like this undermines it therefore that's a reason to prohibit it relatedly virtue ethics conceptions which considers what will happen to the character of the moral agent so Michael Sandel my colleague at Harvard for example is opposed to enhancement because he thinks it encourages an attitude towards our children that is bad, treats them as manufacture and also evinces an attitude that is forbidden which he thinks is un-virtuous for a flourishing person and finally wronging while overall benefiting an act could be wrong and should be regulated because it wrongs a child even though it does not harm them or if you prefer an act wrongs someone even though overall it benefits them that's John Schifrin's formulation while not completely exhaustive this covers most of the waterfront almost all discourse about regulating reproduction happens along this discourse and just to show you that I'm not making this up here's you, here's the UK so this is from the HFEA Act of 1990 a woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless the count has been taken of the welfare of the child who may be born as a result of the treatment including the need of that child for a father much more PC got rid of this bother stuff but kept out, you know that's kind of, you know, I don't know I'll leave you to our own devices what you think about that but kept this idea of child welfare at the center and of course it's so intuitive how lovely you love children you care about children and their welfare it seems so intuitive but the problem is this form of justification is a lie empty lie I told you that there would be a part where I would bite the hand that feeds me right hopefully they won't cancel the dinner after this it's a hollow empty lie right that in fact can't bear the weight you're putting on it BIRC reasoning best interest for the resulting child reasoning is a non-starter for any attempt by the state to influence when, whether or with whom we reproduce and its error is to transpose an idea that makes perfectly sense with existing children and transpose that very sensible idea the idea of children who have not yet come into existence why is that a problem the problem is easiest to see in a case involving restrictions on whether individuals reproduce so say there's a 60 year old woman who wants to use reproductive technologies the state says we're not going to allow that to occur because we're concerned about the child that will result many European states have exactly this law can we say that this noble statue protects that child serves that child's interest no it protects that child out of existence so long as that child would have a life worth living it can't be said that if the active reproduction gone forward the child had been harmed and just to illustrate this these are two possible worlds in this world 60 plus is permitted we have this child over here in this one it's restricted no child comes into existence so the claim people are making when they employ child welfare is to say this child is so much better off than nobody came into existence that seems like a logical problem and indeed it is but the logic extends further to more cases and here this is from the late great British philosopher Derek Parford who developed this idea of the non-identity problem in 1984 he offered the following hypothetical take a 14 year old girl who were trying to convince to wait to get pregnant both for her sake that's paternalism but also for the sake of the child that's BIRC as he writes as long as her child does not have a life not worth living we can't claim that the girl's decision was worse for her child why? because had she listened to us and waited a different child would have come into existence not this child it cannot be worse for this child to come into existence even with a bad start in life if the only alternative was not existing at all and instead being replaced by another point another child this point generalizes to at least any case where the policy enacted by the state has at its anticipated effect altering the sperm and egg combination that is any state attempt to alter when, whether or with whom individuals reproduce cannot be justified on the basis of child welfare reasoning here I illustrate with a different UK policy that's the prohibition of an open market in sperm or eggs so there may be many good reasons to prohibit the market of sperm and eggs but child welfare isn't one of them because when gamete oh it should be sale sake apparently I'm thinking you head to the wine at dinner gamete sale permitted if gamete sales permitted this child and hopefully those sort of purposes made her to girl gets bored if it's prohibited well maybe you have to wait longer for a gamete if not indefinitely even if a child comes into existence it's a different sperm donor who will provide the sperm at a different time therefore a different child will come into existence therefore did the prohibition on gamete sale help this child it's nonsensical to say how we determine that is look to see whether this child is better off you're replacing people it's not the same person in both counterfactuals that is a problem for any child welfare analysis so if I'm right that means the major way in which most states including this country justify the regulation of reproduction is nonsensical is logically fallacious if you disagree it just doesn't make sense does that mean you can't regulate reproduction no but it means things are much more complicated and the easy sunny nice we love children bumper sticker won't work instead you have to go deeper down into political theoretical disagreements and try to resolve them I told you about some of these possibilities paternalism, legal moralism, wronging well overall benefiting I'm now just going to spend a moment on these other ones that I've added now to the picture so the non-identity problem is only a problem for cases involving lives that are worth living if you're going to produce a child that has a life not worth living you can say that child is worse off coming into existence than otherwise by the way this is very logic that I'm talking about the non-identity problem fascinatingly the courts have understood this the rejection of wrongful life liability including in this country since 1982 stands this idea and yet the regulatory system does not which is kind of interesting but if you have a life that's not worth living that's okay you can prevent that life and you're doing good but the category of lives not worth living I want to suggest to you is going to be very very small how small will depend a little bit on how you think bad a particular life a particular disability might be but it's certainly not going to encompass cases of older mothers of people who are the product of a commodified market of many of the things in which the regulators want to reach a different view is called non-person affecting principle approaches a mouthful essentially our typical conception of harm and benefit those are person affecting the same person is made better or worse you are harmed or you are benefited by a regulation in non-person affecting approaches we say the world is not better because any person is made better rather the world is better or worse that is although the person born with the condition in question would not have been harmed by birth the world is better off if that person without that harm has been substituted in the place so this is the claim that we're not making you better or worse by regulating we're instead doing good by replacing you with somebody better that is essentially what this claim is it sounds nasty when you put it that way but that's essentially what the idea is in other work I suggest a lot of reasons why this may not be the most attractive approach to regulating reproduction it carries with it some eugenic overtones it might suggest the state could equally well be justified in mandating human enhancement because that also replaces us with better people it's under inclusive there are many acts of sexual coital reproduction that end up bringing into existence people who are less good and the people we could have brought into existence we would never dream of starting to regulate those yet we feel like it's okay to pick on reproductive technology access and there's many other problems probably the most prominent one is the problem of population ethics that this whole theory is only going to be good in cases where the same number of people come into existence either way where it's one to one swaps because otherwise we will end up in a series of population ethics paradoxes that Parford calls the repugnant conclusion and the mere addition paradox that we can talk about during Q&A if people are interested well what does that leave us we could think about reproductive externalities it's a little strange when you decide how loud you can play your stereo when you decide whether you can have a wild animal that runs across your neighbors lawn when you blow black smoke from one property to the other we often especially in law and economics think about these as externalities a behavior of yours that causes costs for others it's a little strange that we never talk about reproduction in terms of externalities but you could think the right way to think about externalities is what's wrong about an act of reproduction is the cost it imposes on other people in a community and the more socialized your community is in terms of health care and the like the more justified that would be so that is a possible way of talking and thinking about these disputes but again it's one that very quickly takes us into very disturbing territory many of which parallels the problems with the non-person affecting principal approach so I've often said that when I die on my tombstone it will say we find a hard problem he could not make harder but that is my goal for tonight is to show you that the easy answer given by the UK and many industrialized countries are in good company to how we think about regulating reproduction and when the state can act is bogus so just to sum up what have I tried to show you tonight one we have not reached firm agreement on the old school new reproductive technologies and now we have coming down the pipeline even more head scratching and amazing ones these are great news for people and in fact for the progress of science and good news for law professors and ethicists like me because it keeps us in business but maybe bad news for those of you who thought when you left Cambridge you would understand what the right answer would be because new technologies keep coming second though we've equipped you through legal and political theory to actually think about this on the positive liberty side theory about the right to health might matter on the negative liberty side some conception of unbundling might help but don't pat yourself on the back too much because probably the way most people have reasoned about these cases and most governments have reasoned about these cases the idea of best interest of the resulting child is a non-starter and when we attempt to go deeper and find ideas that actually work you'll see that both the philosophy and the political level of agreement over them dwindles so there's a lot of hard work ahead of us thank you very much and I look forward to your questions applause


I spoke to a woman who shared her story with me. She should first take into account what really happens before telling a story of that magnitude. She is a victim's right advocate who is telling this is what drug cartels are doing. She was not trafficked by Mexican drug cartels. Everyone is still completely stunned by Katie Britt's weird and overly dramatic response to Biden's State of the Union on Thursday night, including Republicans who, like all of us, were asking what the hell they were watching and thought that it was cringe-inducing and creepy and predicted that it would be turned into a lame Saturday Night Live skit. And guess what? It was because on Saturday evening, Scarlett Johansson did a phenomenal job recapturing the horror of Katie Britt's weird speech. But when you put aside Britt's bad acting and just look at the substance, she told multiple egregious lies. For example, she claimed that Biden defunded the police. That is just factually incorrect. And as a matter of fact, Biden actually supports increasing funding to police. So he agrees with her position. I wish that he supported defund the police, but he doesn't.  I'm talking about Carla Jacinto, and she provides us with context that makes it very clear Britt never actually cared about her story and that feigned concern that we saw on Thursday was nothing more than an act, a bad one at that. So let's first look back at the moment where Britt referenced the woman in question. I traveled to the Del Rio sector of Texas. That's where I spoke to a woman who shared her story with me. She had been sex trafficked by the cartels starting at the age of 12. She told me not just that she was raped every day, but how many times a day she was raped. The cartels put her on a mattress in a shoebox of a room, and they sent men through that door over and over again for hours and hours on end. We wouldn't be okay with this happening in a third world country. This is the United States of America. Now she brought this up while talking about Biden's border policy and implied that it happened under his watch even though she didn't explicitly say that, but it didn't happen under Biden's watch. And she also claimed that this took place in the United States, but that's not true either. In fact, CNN reached out to Jacinto and she explained all of the things that Britt got wrong about her story that she didn't have permission to share mind you. And by the way, there were multiple things that Britt said about her story that were just factually incorrect. And Erica Carla Jacinto also told me that Senator Britt got many of the facts of her story wrong. First of all, Jacinto says that one, she was not trafficked by Mexican drug cartels, but by a pimp that operated as part of a family that entrapped vulnerable girls in order to force them into prostitution. Two, she also said that she was never trafficked in the United States. Senator Britt appeared to suggest three, she was kept in captivity from 2004 to 2008 when President George W. Bush, a Republican, was in office as opposed to the current administration as the Senator implied. And four, she met the Senator at an event at the border with other government officials and anti-human trafficking activists instead of one-on-one. CNN has confirmed much of what Jacinto has said in prior reporting and her story hasn't changed since we first spoke. Jacinto told me no one reached out to her to ask for her permission to use her story. That's part of the political speech. Someone using my story and distorting it for political purposes, she told me, is not fair at all. So the woman that Britt claimed to care so much about is now accusing her of exploiting her story for political purposes. And she's correct. That is exactly what Katie Britt is doing, but understand why Britt decided to lie. Concerns about drug cartels feeds directly into right-wing hysteria about the border. And if Americans believe that this tragedy happened within our borders, it kind of demonstrates just how bad things have gotten under Biden. So Katie Britt in telling this woman's story and butchering it is trying to conjure up a very specific image in our minds about immigrants and she wants us to view the issue in a particular way, in a bigoted way. So that way we think, wow, if these migrants are crossing the border, maybe they're also like the cartel. Maybe they're going to be violent towards women like these people who did that to that woman. But here's the thing. We don't have open borders, nor do we have a crisis at the border. The only issue with regard to the influx of migrants is our inability to process all of them in a timely manner. It's a funding issue, not an invasion, period. Statistically, immigrants are far less likely to commit crime than citizens despite sensationalist headlines. But if one commits a crime, well, we're gonna hear about that endlessly because they want you to think that that is a generalization that you should apply to all migrants when that's just not factually true. And these immigrants that come here that they continue to fear monger about, they contribute massively to our economy and even pay taxes, but yet they can't vote and don't get any of the benefits of citizenship contrary to popular belief. Immigrants are kept in a perpetual state of exploitation, yet they're treated as if they're the cause of all of our problems when that's just not the case. And let's keep it real. The people screeching the most about immigrants, they're doing so because they're xenophobic and probably wouldn't mind them being here if they were white.  But nobody ever asks why so many people are here in the first place. They're coming here because of us. Decades of meddling, militarism, and our failed drug war has destabilized and destroyed so many Latin American countries and we're now seeing the consequences of our failed policies. Nobody wants to acknowledge the fact that our drug war has emboldened cartels both parties, Democrats and Republicans who perpetuate the drug war have emboldened cartels. And if we really wanted to undercut the black market and minimize fentanyl overdoses, we would legalize and regulate all drugs and then use the tax revenue generated from that towards rehabilitation and rebuilding Latin American countries that we destroyed. But why do that when you can just continue to fear monger about drugs and scapegoat immigrants to win elections forever? But let's hear more from the woman whose story was exploited by Brit because she's not done yet.  Do you feel like that happened once again here in the United States? Yes. In fact, I hardly ever cooperate with politicians because it seems to me that they only want an image. They only want a photo. And that to me is not fair. Trabajo como vocera. I work as a spokesperson for many victims who have no voice and I really would like them to be empathetic. All the governors, all the senators to be empathetic with the issue of human trafficking because there are millions of girls and boys who disappear all the time. People who are really trafficked and abused as she mentioned. And I think she should first take into account what really happens before telling a story with that magnitude. And it's clear that she didn't do that because the goal was to sensationalize that story and fear monger about migrants. So that way moms just like her who are watching are worried more about the danger that migrants pose to their families instead of other things that actually pose a danger to their families like climate change or lead pipes, which side note, that's the thing that Republicans I guess support now at least Kansas Attorney General Chris Kobach attacked Biden for replacing lead pipes. But I mean, that's a different story for a different day. The point is Republicans don't wanna deal with the actual crises that affect Americans in a material way, which is why they're always trying to scare you into thinking that migrants or trans people or the woke mob or crime is the actual thing that you should be worried about when in actuality it's their donors who keep bleeding the rest of us dry that's causing all the problems. But Katie's lie didn't go unnoticed and she was even confronted about this on Fox News. But to be clear, the story that you relate is not something that's happened under the Biden administration, that particular person. Well, I very clearly said I spoke to a woman who told me about when she was trafficked, when she was 12. So I didn't say a teenager, I didn't say a young woman, a grown woman, a woman when she was trafficked when she was 12.  And so I am hopeful that it brings some light to it and we can actually do something about human trafficking and that that's what the media actually decides to cover. She can lie in office, get all she wants, but again, she brought up this story within the context of Biden's failed border policies and within the span of a minute got multiple details wrong. She got caught disingenuously framing this story and rather than just apologizing like a normal person, she's still pretending to care about the story that she exploited. Embarrassing, she is so phony. The good news is her speech was so shockingly bad that she single-handedly killed her own career in any chance of her becoming Trump's VP or moving up within the GOP. That's how much she turned off normal people and the Republican Party and she also managed to somehow give away the GOP's game when it comes to immigration and now even more Americans know that when the GOP talks about immigration, they're lying to you and it's all just one big act as she demonstrated firsthand and pretty brilliantly on national television. So I guess thanks, Katie. Like everywhere there's globes, you see them all the time. I mean, it's constant. My children are about mama, globes, globes, globes. I turn on TV, there's globes in the background. Every TV show news media is Y. gör Mariah Parry


Welcome. Today we're going to explore getting your classes set up in seesaw with class link. So my name is Yvonne and I am a professional development and training specialist here at seesaw. All right, so this webinar is for admin who plan to use class link to create seesaw classes this back to school. And just a quick note we want to stay here so if you will be making any changes to the number of student licenses or schools that you plan on syncing, please go ahead and reach out to our support team. And so we're going to go ahead and add that support request form in the chat for you. And today we're going to explore how to get set up with class link and seesaw. So we're going to review how to resume your sync between class link and seesaw. We're going to troubleshoot sync errors, and we're going to ensure teachers and students can log in and use seesaw this school year. And of course, last but not least, we're going to share with you our training and PD opportunities here at seesaw. Before we get started, I wanted to share some common questions and answers that we do get here at seesaw. So first question is, what will happen to all classes when we sync with class link. So the class link sync will not affect any classes created by your teachers manually created classes that will not be in use this school year should be archived by an admin. Last year's class link classes will be automatically archived when the new school year data is synced with seesaw. So the next question is, we use class link last year. Can I keep my old sharing rules? Yes. There is no need to set up new sharing rules every year unless your seesaw for school subscription changes to add more schools, grade levels or subject areas. If your subscription has changed, you can edit your sharing rules to include additional sections or schools. And so again in the chat, we're going to have a linked resource for you that will guide you in that archiving process. So before we get started, let's make sure that you're signed in to your seesaw for schools admin account. In order to access your admin dashboard, you must have an admin account in seesaw. Log in as a seesaw for schools administrator, you will need to navigate to app.seesaw.me while on a computer, then click I'm a seesaw for schools administrator. District admin access their roster sync dashboard from their district dashboard. So in order to run a sync, you need to be a seesaw district administrator. So once you are logged in, you will want to first resume your nightly sync. Your nightly sync between seesaw and class link was paused over the summer in order to prevent data changes and seesaw before your data was ready. So when most of your class data is ready to be shared with seesaw in class link, you will need to resume your nightly sync and seesaw. So to resume your nightly sync, you will click the manage roster sync button on your district admin dashboard. That's in the lower right hand corner. Then you're going to click resume nightly sync, which you'll find in the upper right hand corner. Now the next step is sinking your data from class link to seesaw.  So for additional resources and setup steps, we have added a link in the chat for you. So now you're going to click sync all schools from your roster sync dashboard to initiate a full sync, which will bring new classes into seesaw and archive last year's classes. So during this process, new classes will be created existing teacher and student accounts with emails or student IDs that match the information and your class link shared data will be found and updated. And accounts will be created for all students and teachers who do not have existing accounts that match the data in the sync. So just to know this process can take several hours depending on the amount of data that is sinking. So you can feel free to check back later. And we have added an additional resource for you in the chat as well. So after you run your first full sync between class link and seesaw, you may find errors on your roster sync dashboard. So errors can block data from fully sinking over and impact students and teachers ability to fully use seesaw. It is important that you only share grade levels and classes you have purchased seesaw for schools for contact the person at your school or district who purchase seesaw to confirm those numbers, then go ahead and update your sharing rules. Sharing more students than you have purchased for will create what we call a hold on your sync. See saw supports 150 students and 20 teachers per class classes will not update if they exceed these limits. So update your sharing rules to fit within these limits. You can find more information on seesaw user limits and the link that we're going to place in the chat for you. So a grade level is not required in class link. If you don't include a grade level classes will just sink as what we call grade level other in seesaw. So for more information on clearing other errors or minor errors, including which errors that require assistance from seesaw support. We have placed our seesaw support request form in the chat for you, along with a resource on how to fix class link sync errors. So if one of your schools is paused, you can resume the nightly sync for that school by clicking the three dot menu button next to the school and then select resume nightly sync. For schools that have a hold, you'll need to resolve errors and rerun your sync for that school. For view errors affecting a school in seesaw, click the view errors button that appears next to the school. You'll be taken to your error description page. You can download all of the errors for a school at one time by clicking the three dots button next to the school. And then you can download an error CSV page. So we do recommend checking your roster sync dashboard on a daily basis throughout the year to keep an eye on how your data is flowing into seesaw. To resolve any errors that may arise. The error description page will show you any errors that occurred. So you'll just simply follow the instructions under the resolution to make the changes required to your data in class link, or the schools admin dashboard. Once you have resolved these errors, you can clear them by rerunning your sync. You'll simply click rerun sync from the error description page. If you have more questions about how to resolve an error, you can reach out to the seesaw support team for more assistance. And again we have dropped that link in the chat for you. We also have created a video walkthrough of these steps and an example of a very common error. And you can see this video when you receive our slide deck here. It's a great idea to watch that video. Welcome. Let's explore. There we go. And now we're going to transition over to our PD and training opportunities. So the seesaw learning hub is our newest online portal where teachers and administrators invest in their professional growth to elevate learning in their classroom and explore the best ways to use seesaw with their learning communities. So we went ahead and put that link in the chat for you. The learning hub is separate from the seesaw app. So there are two different places. So teachers and administrators just like yourselves just need to sign in and create an account at learn.seesaw.me to start learning at your own pace so you can pause and return to the course or courses at any time and continue where you left off. The learning hub is broken down into pathways of short courses to help teachers and administrators get started and or go deeper with your seesaw knowledge. And here is an example of a pathway, which is the getting started pathway. Here you can see that there are five different courses within this pathway. We also have a deep in learning pathway, a pathway for specialist teachers, a seesaw lessons pathway, a pathway for our seesaw community members, and an administrator pathway. So teachers and administrators can begin and pause different courses to complete again at your own pace. So our PD catalog here outlines all training and professional development that is that is available for seesaw administrators. And so we'll go ahead and put our catalog link in the chat for you. So we do continue to have train the trainer support for in-house trainers, coaches, ambassadors, or seesaw certified educators. You can access our resources and our free PD kits at web.seesaw.me Backslash seesaw for schools PD. And we really do recommend bookmarking this page for quick and easy access. And here you can find more detailed information about PD formats and sessions that are available. And we went ahead and drop that link in the chat for you as well. And for you as an administrator, you can find setup steps and resources here. We also recommend bookmarking this page for quick access. So on our training page, you will find upcoming free webinars that you and your staff can register for to support you in getting up and running with seesaw for back to school and beyond. And again, I would highly encourage you to bookmark this page. So just like you did today, you went and registered for this session. We've got great upcoming back to school webinars for your teachers. All right, so seesaw connect is happening right now. So our free virtual conference for every seesaw educator and administrator started last week on Monday, July 25th. You can enroll right now to get access to 30 plus conference courses, which you will have access to until August 14th. Administrators, you can also nominate educators to be fast track to ambassadors. So this guarantees successful seesaw implementation and seesaw PD for your school. So you can talk to your CSM to get your nomination type form. We have also added some community resources for you in the chat as well. And if you're responsible for training other teachers or supporting their implementation of seesaw, you have the opportunity to fast track into our seesaw ambassador community. So this is available only to you as a paid school. This gives you access to a network of support with other seesaw leaders. So again, you can nominate up to three leaders of the district or school level to fast track. So in the chat we have added how to connect in a seesaw learning community and how to become a seesaw pioneer. So now that we've covered how to set up classes with class link and all of our available resources, let's go ahead and open it up for questions. So let me pull over our chat and let's see if we've got any questions in here. Let's see if you'll have any questions, please feel free to type them in the chat or in the Q&A. See it looks like our back channel has been on top of it. Any other questions? If not, I'm going to give you all some of your time back. I know it's a very busy back to school season. Any other questions? Anything else? We got one coming in. All right. We have a question, can parents be connected via class link? So I know for a seesaw and Mimi, I think you're on so you can correct me if I'm wrong, but at seesaw we just do teachers, students and administrators. That's correct. Okay. That was a great question. Any other questions? All right. Giving everybody wait time. The teacher and me wants to give you wait time. Okay, we got an answer. Yes, we do have a wonderful support team that's here to help you. And Mimi went ahead and put our support email in there, thank you Mimi. All right. Any other questions? You all have been fabulous today. Okay. Well, I want to, oh, we have one more coming in. Okay, Mimi's on top of it. Thanks Mimi. All right. Well, we want to thank you all for joining us today. If there were any questions that went unanswered, we will be sure to follow up with you. And we hope to see you soon again here at seesaw. Bye everyone.


Alright, so we're just walking up now to the Red Traktor officers. If you don't know what Red Traktor is, it's similar to the RSPCA. They approve and assure the public of their products being traceable, trustworthy, humane. So Red Traktor, I think they approve plant products, but they also approve animal products. Assure the public that the animals were slaughtered using the highest standards and the farms are in, you know, following the best guidelines possible in the UK. We've exposed these farms before. This is Mossrose Piggeries in Blackpool. A Red Traktor-approved farm that is a direct supplier to the supermarket chain Morrison's. In April to June of this year, undercover investigators discovered shocking scenes inside this facility, including sick and injured animals, unsalitary conditions and clear animal welfare breaches. These animals were also provided with no bedding, no sign of food and visible blood stains were seen on the floor on walls. Red Traktor is just a nonsense stamp that makes people feel good about purchasing cruel products. Here we are here. I believe this is the offices here. It looks like there's a animal rebellion little stamp on the side of it. There's another one that says feeding ignorance, which is true. Red Traktor feed ignorance because no one ever looks into it. They see the stamp, Red Traktor. When I see that stamp, all I see is just pigs screaming for their lives in gas chambers. According to Morrison's own website, their pork is sourced from UK pig farms, which have some of the highest standards in Europe and the world. And all their own brand produce has to adhere to Red Traktor-approved standards. What these places do is they make our job harder because they're making the public feel comfortable about something that's obviously wrong and cruel. Police are arriving. These are the type of farms that Red Traktor approves. All Red Traktor are are a massive propaganda machine. So they feed this liar to the public. They're one of the main problems with animal agriculture. People think that what they're purchasing is humane because of the constant propaganda that's repeated into their mind through advertising and through the pictures of green pastures and UK has the best food standards on earth, the best slaughter practices, the best farms, all a bunch of utter nonsense. Red Traktor-approved gas chambers, knives and throats, bolt guns to the skulls of animals and they claim it's humane. From our research we believe Moss Rose are potentially in violation of a number of Red Traktor guidelines, including risks to animal welfare, vermin control, unhygienic conditions, lack of dry lying areas, inappropriate flooring, lack of environmental enrichment and much more. They're propaganda machines. I think they are the biggest problem with changing people. Yeah, I love that. That describes it perfectly. These places we should target more. Like RSPCA, Red Traktor, these humane stamps, their job in there is to trick the public because they know. How can we market this product to make people feel comfortable about this product and how are we going to design this advertisement? Okay, we'll do the happiest animals, the best conditions in the world. There was a lady who talked about the marketing of animal products. She did a TED talk. You remember that one? She talked about the marketing part. All it is is marketing. They're trying to make you feel comfortable about buying their product. I'm going to give you some of the secrets about how we make you buy what we want you to buy. Everybody believes what's on the label. Let's look at some examples. Some of my favourites. Some of the ones I use all the time. I'll use Farm Fresh. I'll use 100% natural. I'll use Butcher's Choice. But what does that really actually mean? Truthfully, it doesn't mean very much. We see that on the label we feel a bit more confident. But let's have a look at what a farm really looks like. It probably looks like that. This is a concentrated animal feeding operation. That's not going to look great on a label. Hence we use Farm Fresh. Now the public aren't going to be massively keen on that idea. It's my job to make them feel a little bit better about it. And what they do is they say, as farming has become more efficient, veterinarians have incorporated new technologies and methods into practice. This makes us feel good. This is positive. This is progress. So these two techniques alone, they are not going to work. We need a secret weapon. Number three, it is you. When you're in the supermarket, you don't want to think about where those products have come from. You don't want to think about how those animals have been reared, how they've been treated. The power of willful ignorance cannot be overstated. And we went to Morrison's and handed out the pasties and showed all the red tractor farms to everyone. Okay, so here we are at the front of Morrison's. We've got the vegan pasties and the vegan sausage rolls. We're going to hand them out to the public and see what they think about red tractor approved. What does this sign mean to you, red tractor approved? Oh really, it's like a humane stamp of approval. And they put it on, if you go into Morrison's you'll see it on the meat products.  So if you can see, they're on concrete floors. This is a factory farm. So Morrison's put this stamp of approval on there. But these pastries here actually contain no animal products at all. So there's no meat or anything in these. No, it's really unbelievable. I really understand farmers sometimes because they struggle. But they've been brought up in doctors. They've just been brought up in a farming community. This is really bad. They are more culpable I feel. Because they know, they would know that a lot of their places are being exposed as well. And I don't know, they're not very strenuous with their checks. It's good we'll take these people down. Not the people that will take this business, this corporation. The people are just people aren't they? But still, I have a moral conflict with lying to the public about something that's obviously cruel. And a moral conflict with something that's clearly destroying the earth's resources and environment and the recent UN report about the climate and all of this. There's something really ethically wrong with that. If this is seen by Morrison's and the red tractor scheme as acceptable, then what do the farms that don't get accepted look like?


Try number three Arters and Butler again talking it over another short corner this time Butler gives it back to Arters Arters pulls the trigger. Oh another beautiful goal That's all about practice. That's all about training running a play like that and then Arters with a spectacular strike just inside the bar and we are level


We're joining us for more on how that data played out across the fixed income space. We're joined by Kasper Walski from Fixed Securities. Kasper, warm welcome to you. We mentioned there we saw that US GDP data out overnight. What sort of reaction did we see across bond markets? Good morning, Leanne. Yeah, we saw those, as you said, those GDP figures come out at 2.1% for the third quarter up from the previous estimates of 1.5%. It seems like a big jump, very much in line with expectations, however. But the thing we look at is the composition of that and it was made up largely by an increase in inventories by businesses, so a little bit of concern there. But I think looking forward, it's not really going to have a big impact on what the Fed does and those expectations of them hiking next month are pretty firm. I think they're finally over about 70%. When you look at market implied probabilities, so that short end of the yield curve is sort of locked in around there and yields are relatively unchanged given those GDP figures. Kasper, certainly seeing a lot of new bond issuance on the market lately, aren't we? What's behind this? Is it based around that certainty in the Fed and I guess that playing into it? I think so, definitely. I don't think it's just the Fed. I think it's really all the major central banks around the world. We've got the BOG, ECB, I can rattle off all the acronyms, but I think they've been really clear in their messaging to the market recently, a bit of a shift away what we saw a few months ago and in terms of what each of those respective central banks will be doing at their next policy meetings, I think is pretty clear. The market has a lot of certainty around that, so from that sense things are relatively calm and those concerns around Greece and China that we saw a few months ago have sort of abated for the most part and volatility has died down. So we're seeing a lot of these issuers return to market if they put plans off earlier in the year and more issuers are coming to market. For example, next D.C. just placed $100 million in an unrated bond after having put off plans a little bit earlier in the year to do so. What makes it look good for issuers? Kasper, you talk there about the credit ratings of some of those issuers. What relevance does that have? I mean we saw Qantas upgraded last week, did that have a large impact? Yes, so next D.C. was unrated paper, but obviously there are issuers coming out who are rated. Qantas is a very good example. Last week S&P, they previously had them as a non-investment grade issuer and they upgraded them to investment grade. So the impact there was their bonds rallied on the back of it, about 25 basis points in yield terms. And investors who held those bonds with the view of the credit rating upgrade, they were handsomely rewarded but at the same time that bond is now in the investment grade space and a lot of investors who only look at that sector of the market, they now have a new corporate credit that they can look at and there's been a lot of buying interest coming in on the back of that. Fantastic. Kasper, we're going to leave it there but really appreciate your time. Thanks so much for joining us. Thanks Lea. That's Kasper Walski joining us there from...


Can we turn Diego? Well played son, Kiggy great position son One more and then, nice, cool, nice There was singing heard in the corridors last night Very excited Confident now, I'm confident Backpedal Kyle, backpedal Look I could be in there, you see me?  What does that tell me? Okay I'm going to go more crude than that Where are you mentally? So I look at the 3v2s The first few, an absolute joke No movement, no runs Overlaps, you were talking to Kingie For me that was absolutely right, get round him And it was almost like a long way round him But we need that movement and that combination If you come out in straight lines all the time Kingie The drill doesn't work And that's counter-attacking in a game Where we were devastating last year It comes from movement Your voice when you do overlap H Your overlap was the best creative space for Bruxy Bruxy runs it in the bottom corner Without that movement he doesn't score the goal So sacrificial to a point has to be done Better, decision making Oh, what a goal! First, three minutes, three and a half minutes Second, you like chalk and cheese And every aspect, attitude, ability, desire to run Space in chaps, we're crowding the ball Play on! Simo, what a pass! The classic, step in, step in Worked on this this morning, yes My body shape, there, see everything Bang, reverse passes So it's like a rondo in a sense Just slightly bigger Doesn't mean you can't press blues, what's happened here? Find your way out, find your way out Good, lend the ball, lend the ball Good, good Good, find your way out React, react Played Brilliant football Good gozo Brilliant goz Well played Tyler Forward Bruxy, good Well done we man, different class Here we go Oh gap, different gravy son Well received, go forward though gap Well played Yes H, forward Brilliant son, lucky, here we go Can we turn Diego? Well played son, Kiggy, great position son Okay chaps, interesting game This is such a good game for us I want to see what we've worked on come out today So I'm looking at our defenders' back line I'm looking at our opposite wide man out of possession I'm looking for our centre forwards Attack and crosses Loads and loads of stuff that we can positively review with you from this game But it's going to go quick The classic for our full backs Don't lose sight of what you're doing So don't let it just become a mess I want real quality to come out Our passing patterns that we've worked on this week Maximise it, you've got a 12 minute game to finish Let's go Way purgey, different class React Gozo, gozo, gozo Yeah well played Keep it Good lad, unlucky Here we go Loving you too Played, Kiggy, goals Yes 2v1, go on Jack Go on, go on Jack Run, run, run Go on Jack, go on Jack There you go, brilliant Go on Diego, don't ignore Jordy Diego, good ball son Morning Michael, how are you? Good to see you Kenny how are you? You good? You made it then You go for it in a minute


Course MetaLink in Moodle 3.1 The Course MetaLink enrolment method has been improved in Moodle 3.1. It's now possible to search for courses to link to and to add several courses in one step without leaving the page. Our teacher in this course has the capability to select courses as MetaLinked and so he clicks on Users Enrolment Methods and then adds the Course MetaLink method. From the next screen, he can type in some key letters to find courses or he can select from the dropdown and then when he's ready to add them all, he clicks the Add Method button. And here they are. Find out more in the Moodle documentation.


Hi everyone Joe for jazzy's casewrakes.com coming at you with 2021 Panini prism draft picks football one box Number 41 random pack number 41 big. Thanks everybody here. Thank you for getting into the action and Now so I print out the labels. I did we're gonna open up the box first print out the labels and then We'll randomize your names randomize the hits and See who gets what? Slip back here. Let's roll it randomize it three and a three hard six for names and teams what names and packs one two three four five and six That Nicholas down to Matthew Hard six six the hard way for the pack numbers one two three four And four five two one three all right Nicholas with four Steve with five Nicholas with two Steve with one and Matthew with three we're gonna do these let's do these Alphabetically sort by column a Matthew will go with pack three first Then Nick's packs and then Steve birch the last two packs five and one Which would be the the top pack and the bottom pack. Let's print out the labels very quick Monday Prism draft picks FD football unbox random pack RP number 41 Let's print those out And let's see what we got All right, so Matthew you're up first with pack three. It's right in the middle. Let's see what we got All right Travis Kelsey Teddy Bridgewater blue wave to 249 Nick Bolton Hawkins Devonta Smith Clyde Edward D. Laird Jared stittum and your autograph Matthew is gonna be Brandon Smith blue parallel 93 out of 149 and There's Bridgewater 009 to 249 All right, thank you Matthew Nicholas you're up. You've got two packs. You have four and two there's four There's two Good luck. Let's save the autographs for last. There's Chuba Hubbard red wave Joe Burrow red to 299 red wave Aziz All Americans Sean Wade to 199 There's a Mack Jones say Juan Barclay and behind Travis Kelsey is gonna be Rashad Weaver Willy what's going on? No, it's not late night. This is normal switch up the schedule a little bit Rashad Weaver Like a month ago Or where have you been really? Mack Jones. We've got Sean Wade and the Joe Burrow red. Let's see what the other autograph is gonna be On Phillip River. It's gonna be Dylan radunes Congrats, man. Well, hey now that you have a you have a new daughter. Congratulations You can stay up late and watch Jaspie's all hours All right, Nick. Thank you All right. Well, maybe we'll find a big hit for for Steve Birch Gets the first pack and the last pack five and one Well redemption. What does that mean? All right, Hamilkar Rashid 64 out of 99 blue ice. We got Miles Garrett orange Pulsar 42 out of 49 Pat Friarmouth Zach Wilson all-americans insert Josh Allen Jarvis Landry and We got Darren Hall To 149 just top load all these really quick and let's see what we have in your final pack A lot of nice parallels here though to start. We see a big name On that redemption There's Seyquan Barkley red wave Michael Carter to 299 a Monroe St. Brown JK Dobbins DeAndre Hopkins your redemption Steve Birch is gonna be Dwayne Eskridge draft picks autograph All right, so we have not seen a big name IE the quarterbacks Right haven't seen their autographs haven't seen a Trevor Lawrence auto or anything of thing of that nature So hey get into the next one ladies and gentlemen. Let's keep searching for the big names in a panini prism draft picks football I'm Joe. I'll see you next time for the next break. Bye. Bye