'd feel more comforable believing your source if there was a credible medical backing as a part of it.
Seeing as it's a cited report from a university, I thought it sufficient, but here's one from a rather well-renowned geneticist.

I'm not doubting your beliefs, but my beliefs are strengthened by the fact that no actual scientific evidence from the medical community has proven conclusively one way or the other.
And may or may not ever be--especially since there will always be a few scientists or doctors out there to which "conclusively" means "enough to convince OJ's jury". But again, shouldn't an infant have at least as much benefit of the doubt as convicted murderers?

And thank god somebody is doing the right thing!

But then again, I am an evil, mindless liberal. After all, I am opposed to murder.
More than the judge was, I hope.

But even assuming you figure the overturning of the death sentence was a good thing on general principle, can you agree that "the jury may have read the Bible" is a bad method for coming to that decision?