The coolest place on the internet, according to this tagline.
AskArchiveFAQ

Click the link to read the text of Astrue v. Capato, this morning’s Supreme Court decision that held that children conceived and born from in vitro fertilization after their father’s death are not allowed the right to survivor’s benefits from Social Security. Unanimous decision, with the opinion written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (minor edit)

Click the link to read the text of Astrue v. Capato, this morning’s Supreme Court decision that held that children conceived and born from in vitro fertilization after their father’s death are not allowed the right to survivor’s benefits from Social Security. Unanimous decision, with the opinion written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (minor edit)

May 21, 2012 // 11:20 // 2 years ago
blog comments powered by Disqus

59 notes from really cool Tumblrs like ours. Click to read.

  1. businessoutsider reblogged this from shortformblog
  2. noreasterly reblogged this from shortformblog
  3. futilityofignorance reblogged this from shortformblog
  4. ricardodavinci reblogged this from shortformblog
  5. mujerardiente reblogged this from shortformblog and added:
    this is b.s.
  6. thepoliticalfreakshow reblogged this from sarahlee310
  7. sarahlee310 reblogged this from shortformblog
  8. canisfamiliaris reblogged this from reuters and added:
    Astrue v. Capato (pdf) isthe Supreme Court opinion released this morning declaring that children born from in vitro...
  9. newsfeederlive reblogged this from shortformblog
  10. florida-uterati reblogged this from reuters
  11. melissajoyk reblogged this from shortformblog and added:
    And some days the Supreme Court does things right.
  12. ilmaimait reblogged this from latenightadultery
  13. latenightadultery reblogged this from shortformblog
  14. whenimreallyathundacat reblogged this from reuters
  15. iwanttobeinformed reblogged this from shortformblog
  16. baveshmoorthy reblogged this from reuters
  17. eagleversusshark reblogged this from shortformblog
  18. wolfperson1 said: Your summary is a little misleading. They ruled that children conceived after the father’s death aren’t eligible. I think that’s a bit different than saying “born” after his death. In vitro or no in vitro.
  19. thegoddamnfruitbat reblogged this from reuters and added:
    That is just sad.
  20. simplyscott reblogged this from reuters
  21. intricatelysimple reblogged this from reuters
  22. polka-dotted-cynicism reblogged this from reuters
  23. avenrue reblogged this from reuters and added:
    HA
  24. mindblogger reblogged this from reuters
  25. kaliem reblogged this from reuters
  26. whereinthehellisnowherenow reblogged this from shortformblog and added:
  27. reuters reblogged this from shortformblog
  28. myonlyrealityislove reblogged this from shortformblog and added:
    We discussed this shit in Estates class last semester. I always find it funny when something I learn about in class...
  29. gracefree reblogged this from shortformblog
  30. lawandhoundstooth reblogged this from shortformblog and added:
    Wow
  31. malcontentment reblogged this from shortformblog
  32. fknabert reblogged this from shortformblog
  33. dammitjim-imaphysicistnotadoctor reblogged this from shortformblog and added:
    Why would this woman even think she could get social security benefits for kids conceived AFTER her husband died?