Looking up at the sky just after sunset or just before sunrise will reveal a fairly staggering amount of satellites orbiting overhead, from tiny cubesats to the International Space Station. Of course these satellites are always around, and even though you’ll need specific conditions to view them with the naked eye, with the right radio antenna and only a few dollars in electronics you can see exactly which ones are flying by at any time.

[Josh] aka [Ham Radio Crash Course] is demonstrating this build on his channel and showing every step needed to get something like this working. The first part is finding the correct LoRa module, which will be the bulk of the cost of this project. Unlike those used for most Meshtastic nodes, this one needs to be built for the 433 MHz band. The software running on this module is from TinyGS, which we have featured here before, and which allows a quick and easy setup to listen in to these types of satellites. This build goes much further into detail on building the antenna, though, and also covers some other ancillary tasks like mounting it somewhere outdoors.

With all of that out of the way, though, the setup is able to track hundreds of satellites on very little hardware, as well as display information about each of them. We’d always favor a build that lets us gather data like this directly over using something like a satellite tracking app, although those do have their place. And of course, with slightly more compute and a more directed antenna there is all kinds of other data beaming down that we can listen in on as well, although that’s not always the intent.

youtube.com/embed/V6RJG9q7R8M?…

hackaday.com/2025/11/26/buildi…

This week Jonathan chats with Maurice Kalinowski about QT! That’s the framework that runs just about anywhere, making it easy to write cross-platform applications. What’s the connection with KDE? And how has this turned into a successful company? Watch to find out!

• qt.io/

youtube.com/embed/pMSStjolrRA?…

Did you know you can watch the live recording of the show right on our YouTube Channel? Have someone you’d like us to interview? Let us know, or have the guest contact us! Take a look at the schedule here.

play.libsyn.com/embed/episode/…

Direct Download in DRM-free MP3.

If you’d rather read along, here’s the transcript for this week’s episode.

Places to follow the FLOSS Weekly Podcast:

• Spotify
• RSS

Theme music: “Newer Wave” Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)

Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License

hackaday.com/2025/11/26/floss-…

Il Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale (TAR) della Campania, Sezione Nona, con la recente Sentenza N. 06288/2025, ha stabilito un principio fondamentale a tutela delle persone con disabilità, accogliendo il ricorso di un cittadino che si è visto revocare l’assegno di cura a causa di un ISEE gonfiato.

La Controversia: Assegno di Cura Revocato per ISEE “Falsato”

Il caso ha origine dalla revoca dell’assegno di cura da parte del Comune di Teano (Comune capofila dell’Ambito territoriale dei servizi sociali C03) nei confronti del coniuge del ricorrente. La misura era stata revocata a seguito di un’attestazione ISEE rilasciata dall’INPS ritenuta errata.

L’errore risiedeva nell’aver incluso nel calcolo dell’Indicatore della Situazione Economica Equivalente (ISEE) le somme percepite a titolo di risarcimento per danno biologico. Secondo l’INPS, tale risarcimento avrebbe dovuto figurare come componente reddituale o patrimoniale mobiliare.

I ricorrenti hanno impugnato tale decisione, lamentando la violazione dell’art. 4 del DPCM 159/2013. La loro tesi era chiara: le somme risarcitorie non sono tassabili e non sono reddito. In ricorso, si è dedotto che la dicitura “ogni altro componente reddituale esente da imposta” si riferisce ad un reddito e non già ad un risarcimento per perdite “non reddituali”.

Il Principio Giuridico: Funzione Compensativa, Non di Arricchimento

Il TAR della Campania ha dato pieno accoglimento al ricorso, aderendo all’orientamento consolidato del Consiglio di Stato (sentenza n. 838/2016).

Il Collegio ha ribadito che il regolamento ISEE (D.P.C.M. 5 dicembre 2013 n. 159) è illegittimo nella parte in cui include, tra i trattamenti fiscalmente esenti ma rilevanti, l’indennità o il risarcimento a favore delle situazioni di « disabilità ». Tali somme, inclusi gli indennizzi da danno biologico invalidante, devono essere considerate per ciò che essi sono, perché poste a fronte di una condizione di disabilità grave e già in sé non altrimenti rimediabile.

Il TAR ha respinto la tesi dell’INPS secondo cui il risarcimento del danno costituirebbe comunque componente patrimoniale mobiliare nell’ambito dell’attestazione ISEE.

Il ragionamento seguito dal Giudice di appello e fatto proprio dal TAR è il seguente:

• Le forme risarcitorie e l’indennità di accompagnamento non servono a remunerare alcunché, né all’accumulo del patrimonio personale.
• La loro funzione è compensare un’oggettiva ed ontologica situazione d’inabilità che provoca in sé e per sé disagi e diminuzione di capacità reddituale.
• Il risarcimento viene accordato per pervenire in una posizione uguale rispetto a chi non soffre di quest’ultimo ed a ristabilire una parità morale e competitiva.

Di conseguenza, lo strumento ISEE, che misura il livello economico del nucleo familiare, non può definire reddito ma neppure patrimonio un’indennità o un risarcimento.

Ripercussioni e Normativa Successiva

L’accoglimento del ricorso comporta che il coniuge dei ricorrenti ha diritto ad essere reinserito nell’elenco degli ammessi alla erogazione dell’assegno di cura. Il Collegio ha altresì condannato l’INPS e il Comune di Teano al pagamento delle spese di lite.

È importante sottolineare, come rilevato nella sentenza, che l’orientamento giurisprudenziale è stato recepito anche a livello normativo dal d.P.C.M n. 13 del 14 gennaio 2025. Tale decreto ha modificato l’art. 4 del D.P.C.M. 159/2013, escludendo esplicitamente dal calcolo dell’ISEE i trattamenti percepiti in condizione di disabilità laddove non rientranti nel reddito complessivo ai fini IRPEF.

In sintesi: La sentenza del TAR conferma che i risarcimenti per danno biologico e le indennità di disabilità non sono strumenti di arricchimento, ma di ristoro, e pertanto la loro inclusione nell’ISEE penalizza ingiustamente le famiglie che già vivono una condizione di svantaggio, distorcendo l’accesso alle prestazioni sociali agevolate.

L'articolo Il Risarcimento per Danno Biologico non è Reddito! Il TAR Napoli dà ragione ai cittadini disabili. proviene da Associazione Luca Coscioni.

When you’re designing a bounty hunter game for a five-day cyberpunk live-action-role-play out in the middle of the Mojave desert, you’ve got to bring something extra cool. But [Elli]’s Hackaday Supercon talk isn’t just about the hardware; it’s as much about the design philosophy behind the game – how you bring something immersive and exciting to hundreds of players.

Sandbox Systems

The game itself is fairly simple: bounty hunters try to find the bounty, and when they do, they have a quick-draw to see who wins. Everyone is issued a color-coded Portable Data Node device, and when a hunter jacks into a bounty’s Node, a countdown begins, and the first to press the button after the display say “Go” wins.

But the simplicity of the game is by design, and [Elli] talks about the philosophy that she and her team followed to make it a success. If you’re designing a conference badge or an immersive game for a large group of people, take note.

The first principle is to focus on the people first before the tech. Here, that essentially means making the experience as simple as possible in order to leave room for the players to put their own spin on it – it’s a role-play event after all.

Next is providing opportunities over demands. In this game, for instance, if you’re playing the bounty hunter role, you have to deliver a “Declaration of Intent to Seize” when you encounter a bounty player, but what deciding on your personal catchphrase for this is left up to you.

Embedding the rules of the game in the hardware is perhaps the most involved of the principles. The Data Nodes decide the winner and the loser, report it automatically over WiFi to a central scoreboard, and has anti-button-mashing provisions. These and many more examples of embedding the rules help make the game both fair and simple – nobody has to break the flow to look things up in a rule book or remember who gives what token to whom.

Selling the story of the game with the tech is also important. For instance, there is a part of the Node that [Elli] calls “the doodad” which is just pure LED and greebles. It doesn’t do anything, but it looks cool.

Finally, [Elli] mentions that her team puts an effort into making the game as accessible for everyone as possible. The onboarding video has cyberpunk-styled closed captioning, for instance. While originally designed for folks who don’t hear well, it ended up providing an aesthetic that everyone can enjoy – an example of the curb-cut effect at work.

The end result? 374 players played 3,838 matches over five days, but that’s just the stats. As [Elli] points out, the real point of the game is as an ice-breaker, to allow people room to explore whatever character they’re playing, and to connect people in real-space. It sounds like it was a complete success on all fronts.

The Sandbox

This is a talk on design principles, but it’s also a talk at Supercon, and [Elli] gets pulled into the hardware side of things many times throughout the talk. The Nodes have OLEDs and haptic motors for feedback, they use and ESP32 with WiFi for the score reporting, and there’s even discussion of the serial protocol that they speak to each other when they get connected up via an audio jack.

[Elli] gets some great questions about ways to expand the game, and you’re just going to have to watch the video to appreciate them all. Or join in: after all, it’s an open-source project and it’s intended to be a sandbox!

There seems to be a lot of room to play along, and [Elli]’s talk is definitely food for thought if you’re designing hardware with the end goal of creating and encouraging human interaction through building up an engaging story.

youtube.com/embed/ndodsA254HA?…

hackaday.com/2025/11/26/elli-f…

In a recent video, [Jason Jacques] demos the Busch Electronic Digital-Technik 2075 which was released in West Germany in the 1970s.

The Digital-Technik 2075 comes with a few components including a battery holder and 9 V battery, a push button, two 1 K resistors, a red LED, a 100 nF ceramic capacitor, a 100 µF electrolytic capacitor, a quad NAND gate IC, and a counter module which includes an IC and a 7-segment display. The kit also comes with wires, plugs, a breadboard, and a tool for extracting modules.

The Digital-Technik 2075 doesn’t use the spring terminals we see in other project labs of the time, such as the Science Fair kits from Radio Shack, and it doesn’t use modular Denshi blocks, such as we saw from the Gakken EX-150, but rather uses wire in conjunction with yellow plastic plugs. This seems to work well enough.

In the video, after showing us how to do switch debouncing, [Jason] runs us through making a counter with the digital components and then getting the counter to reset after it counts to five. This is done using NAND gates. Before he gets stuck into doing a project he takes a close look at the manual (which is in German) including some of the advertisements for other project labs from Busch which were available at the time. As he doesn’t speak German [Jason] prints out an English translation of the manual before working through it.

We’ve heard from [Jason] at Hackaday in recent history when we saw his Microtronic Phoenix Computer System which referenced the 2090 Microtronic Computer System which was also made by Busch.

youtube.com/embed/AhI8z8OgQyY?…

hackaday.com/2025/11/26/the-bu…

Headlights. Indicators. Trunk releases. Seatbelts. Airbags. Just about any part of a car you can think of is governed by a long and complicated government regulation. It’s all about safety, ensuring that the car-buying public can trust that their vehicles won’t unduly injure or maim them in regular operation, or in the event of accident.

However, one part of the modern automobile has largely escaped regulation—namely, the humble door handle. Automakers have been free to innovate with new and wacky designs, with Tesla in particular making waves with its electronic door handles. However, after a series of deadly incidents where doors wouldn’t open, regulators are now examining if these door handles are suitable for road-going automobiles. As always, regulations are written in blood, but it raises the question—was not the danger of these complicated electronic door handles easy to foresee?

Trapped

A number of automakers have developed fancy retractable door handles in recent years. They are most notably seen on electric vehicles, where they are stated to have a small but measurable aerodynamic benefit. They are often paired with buttons or other similar electronic controls to open the doors from the inside. Compared to mechanical door handles, however, these door handles come with a trade-off in complexity. They require electricity, motors, and a functioning control system to work. When all is well, this isn’t a problem. However, when things go wrong, a retractable electronic door handle often proves inaccessible and useless.

It’s not hard to find case reports of fatal incidents involving vehicles with electronic door handles—both inside and out. Multiple cases have involved occupants burning alive inside Tesla vehicles, in which electronic door handles failed after a crash. Passengers inside the vehicles have failed to escape due to not finding emergency release door pulls hidden in the door panels, while bystanders have similarly been unable to use the retracted outside door handles to free those trapped inside.

In response, some Tesla owners have gone so far as to release brightly-colored emergency escape ripcords to replace the difficult-to-spot emergency release pulls that are nearly impossible to find without prior knowledge. In the case of some older models, though, there’s less hope of escape. For example, in the Tesla Model 3 built from 2017 to 2023, only front doors have an emergency mechanical release. Rear passengers are out of luck, and must find another route of escape if their electronic door handles fail to operate. No Tesla vehicles feature an easily-accessible mechanical release that can be used from outside the vehicle.
US regulations mandate highly-visible emergency trunk release handles that are easily activated. However, obvious mechanical backups have not been required for cars fitted with electronic door handles. Credit: NHTSA
It’s worth noting that in the US market, federal regulations have mandated glow-in-the-dark trunk releases be fitted to all sedans from the 2002 model year onwards. You could theoretically escape from the trunk of certain Teslas more easily than a Cybertruck or Model 3 with a failed electrical system.

Tesla isn’t the only company out there building cars with retractable door handles. It does, however, remain the most prominent user of this technology, and its vehicles have been involved in numerous incidents that have made headlines. Other automakers, such as Audi and Fiat, have experimented with electronic door handles, both for ingress and egress, with varying degrees of mechanical backup available. In some cases, automakers have used smart two-stage latches. A small pull activates the electronic door release, while a stronger pull will engage a mechanical linkage that unlatches the door. It’s smart engineering—the door interface responds to the exact action a passenger would execute if trying to escape the vehicle in a panic. There are obviously less concerns around electronic door releases that have easily-accessed mechanical backups; it’s just that Tesla is particularly notable for not always providing them.

Over the years, national automotive bodies have thrown up their arms about all sorts of emerging automotive technologies. In the United States specifically, NHTSA has famously slow-walked the approval of things like camera-based rear-view mirror systems and replaceable-bulb headlamps, fearing the worst could occur if these technologies were freely allowed on the market.

Meanwhile, despite the obvious risks, electronic door handles have faced no major regulatory challenges. There were no obvious written rules standing in the way of Tesla making the choice to eliminate regular old door handles. Nor were there strict regulations on emergency door releases for passengers inside the vehicle. Tesla spent years building several models with no mechanical door release for the rear passengers. If your door button failed, you’d have to attempt escape by climbing out through the front doors, assuming you could figure out how to open them. Even today, the models with mechanical door releases still often hide them behind interior trim pieces or carpets, where few passengers would ever think to look in an emergency.

Obvious Mistakes

Flush door handles have become popular with Chinese automakers like BYD and Geely. However, these door handles require the vehicle’s electrical supply to be intact in order to work. Credit: BYD
Things are beginning to change, however. Chinese regulators have led the charge, with reports stating that electronic retractable door handles could be banned as soon as 2027. While some semi-retractable styles will potentially avoid an outright ban, it’s believed new regulations will require a mechanically redundant release system as standard.

As for the US, the sleeping giant of NHTSA has finally awoken in the wake of Bloomberg‘s reporting on the matter. As reported by CNBC, Tesla has been given a deadline of December 10 to deliver records to the federal regulator, regarding design, failures, and customer issues around its electronic door release systems. The Office of Defects Investigations within NHTSA has already recorded 16 reports of failed exterior door releases in the a single model year of the Tesla Model Y. It’s likely a drop in the ocean compared to the full population of Tesla vehicles currently on roads. Meanwhile, the US automaker also faces multiple lawsuits over the matter from those who have lost family members in fatal crashes and fires involving the company’s vehicles.

In due time, it’s likely that automotive regulators in most markets will come out against electronic door handles from a safety perspective alone. No matter how well designed the electrical system in a modern vehicle, it’s hard to beat a lever flipping a latch for simplicity and robustness. The benefits of these electronic door handles are spurious in the first place—a fraction of a percent reduction in drag, and perhaps a little more luxury appeal. If the trade-off is trapping passengers in the event of a fire, it’s hard to say they’re worthwhile.

The electronic door handle, then, is perhaps the ultimate triumph of form over function. They’re often slower and harder to use than a regular door handle, and particularly susceptible to becoming useless when iced over on a frosty morning. For a taste of the future, lives were put at risk. Anyone could see that, so it’s both strange and sad that automakers and regulators alike seemed not to notice until it was far too late. Any new regulations will, once again, be written in blood.

Contrary to headlines suggesting the EU has “backed away” from Chat Control, the negotiating mandate endorsed today by EU ambassadors in a close split vote paves the way for a permanent infrastructure of mass surveillance. Patrick Breyer, digital freedom fighter and expert on the file, warns journalists and the public not to be deceived by the label “voluntary.”

While the Council removed the obligation for scanning, the agreed text creates a toxic legal framework that incentivizes US tech giants to scan private communications indiscriminately, introduces mandatory age checks for all internet users, and threatens to exclude teenagers from digital life.

“The headlines are misleading: Chat Control is not dead, it is just being privatized,” warns Patrick Breyer. “What the Council endorsed today is a Trojan Horse. By cementing ‘voluntary’ mass scanning, they are legitimizing the warrantless, error-prone mass surveillance of millions of Europeans by US corporations, while simultaneously killing online anonymity through the backdoor of age verification.”

The Three Hidden Dangers of the Council’s “Voluntary” Deal

The Council’s mandate stands in sharp contrast to the European Parliament’s position, which demands that surveillance be targeted only at suspects and age checks are to remain voluntary. The Council’s approach introduces three critical threats that have largely gone unreported:

1. “Voluntary” Means Indiscriminate Mass Scanning (The Chat Control 1.0 Trap)
The text aims to make the temporary “Chat Control 1.0” regulation permanent. This allows providers like Meta or Google to scan all private chats, indiscriminately and without a court order.

• The Reality: This is not just about finding known illegal images. The mandate allows for the scanning of private text messages, unknown images, and metadata using unreliable algorithms and AI.
• The Failure: These algorithms are notoriously unreliable. The German Federal Police (BKA) has warned that 50% of all reports generated under the current voluntary scheme are criminally irrelevant.
• Breyer’s comment: “We are talking about tens of thousands of completely legal, private chats being leaked to police annually due to faulty algorithms and AI. This is no more reliable than guessing. Calling this ‘voluntary’ does not make the violation of the digital secrecy of correspondence any less severe.”

2. The Death of anonymous communications: Age Checks for Everyone
To comply with the Council’s requirement to “reliably identify minors,” providers will be forced to verify the age of every single user.

• The Reality: This means every citizen will effectively have to upload an ID or undergo a face scan to open an email or messenger account.
• The Consequence: This creates a de facto ban on anonymous communication—a vital lifeline for whistleblowers, journalists, political activists, and abuse victims seeking help.
• Unworkable alternative: Experts have warned that other methods for “Age assessment cannot be performed in a privacy-preserving way with current technology due to reliance on biometric, behavioural or contextual information… In fact, it incentivizes (children’s) data collection and exploitation. We conclude that age assessment presents an inherent disproportionate risk of serious privacy violation and discrimination, without guarantees of effectiveness.”

3. “Digital House Arrest” for Teenagers
Under the guise of protection, the Council text proposes barring users under 17 from using apps with chat functions—including WhatsApp, Instagram, and popular online games—unless stringent conditions are met.

• The Reality: This amounts to a “Digital House Arrest,” isolating youth from their social circles and digital education.
• Breyer’s comment: “Protection by exclusion is pedagogical nonsense. Instead of empowering teenagers, the Council wants to lock them out of the digital world entirely.”

A Dangerous Road to 2026

Today’s vote was far from unanimous, with the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Poland voting against, and Italy abstaining, reflecting deep concerns within the EU about the legality and proportionality of the measure.

Negotiations (“Trilogues”) between the Council and the European Parliament will soon begin, with the aim of finalizing the text before April 2026.

“We must stop pretending that ‘voluntary’ mass surveillance is acceptable in a democracy,” Breyer concludes. “We are facing a future where you need an ID card to send a message, and where foreign black-box AI decides if your private photos are suspicious. This is not a victory for privacy; it is a disaster waiting to happen.”

Background Information & Contact

About the Vote: The Council mandate was today endorsed by the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER).
About the Procedure: The text will now be negotiated with the European Parliament. The Parliament’s mandate (adopted in Nov 2023) explicitly rules out indiscriminate scanning and demands targeted surveillance based on suspicion.

More information: chatcontrol.eu

patrick-breyer.de/en/reality-c…

Dunque, sono partito con l'organizzazione questa primavera.

Ho contattato diverse associazioni che si occupano di violenza di genere, una mi ha risposto e ha messo a disposizione una psicologa delle loro (che arrivava da fuori Firenze). Ho contattato un sindacato della scuola perché facessero arrivare la notizia a qualche insegnante/dirigente scolastico nel tentativo di coinvolgere gli studenti (scelta sbagliatissima perché non hanno fatto assolutamente nulla, la prossima volta contatterò direttamente i rappresentanti degli studenti). Ho prenotato la sala alla casa del popolo. Come RSU abbiamo convocato un'assemblea dei lavoratori di 4 ore in modo che la gente potesse partecipare senza prendere permessi o ferie. Ho fatto la locandina. Stamattina mi sono alzato alle 6:30 per andare lì a preparare la sala (sistemazione PC per fare un video, impianto amplificazione, sistemazione sedie, ecc.).

Risultato: 10 persone (su più di 150 dipendenti della mia azienda).

E niente...

Sono passati dodici mesi dall’entrata in vigore della legge n. 169 del 2024, la cosiddetta “legge Varchi”, che ha esteso il reato di surrogazione di maternità anche quando compiuto all’estero da cittadini italiani. Una norma formalmente efficace da dicembre 2024, ma che nella realtà ha iniziato a produrre effetti solo nove mesi dopo: lo stesso tempo di una gravidanza. Eppure, alcune Procure hanno provato a forzarne un’applicazione immediata, fingendo di non sapere ciò che tutta la dottrina penalistica ripete da anni: il reato non “nasce” con il bambino, ma con il trasferimento dell’embrione — o, al limite, con la sua formazione.

Proprio ora, dunque, stanno arrivando i primi casi concreti, con famiglie che rischiano fino a due anni di reclusione e un milione di euro di multa per essersi rivolte alla gravidanza per altri per ragioni mediche o sociali. L’Italia si propone così come esportatrice di un “reato universale”, calpestando i principi fondamentali del nostro ordinamento, come fatto in fondo molteplici volte con la legge 40. Non a caso: la legge 40 è stata dichiarata incostituzionale almeno quattro volte. Eppure eccoci qui, a ripetere gli stessi errori, tentando addirittura di imporli al resto del mondo. Una vera universalizzazione dell’assurdo.

Non sorprende, quindi, che la ministra Roccella abbia sfruttato la presentazione alle Nazioni Unite del rapporto della Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem per rilanciare una narrazione priva di basi solide. Il rapporto parla di gravidanza per altri mescolando luoghi comuni e timori astratti; interrogata sui dati, la stessa Alsalem ha ammesso che non ce ne sono. E certo che mancano: il proibizionismo crea clandestinità, e dunque procedure sommerse che spesso determinano abusi. Inoltre il rapporto afferma che molto spesso il consenso delle donne gestanti non c’è, e se c’è, non è valido, perché viziato dal solo fatto di essere una gestante. Un corto circuito di cui sarebbe interessante sapere cosa pensa anche Giorgia Meloni a seguito della riforma del reato di violenza sessuale che introduce il consenso come elemento per il quale “se non c’è consenso è violenza sessuale.” Secondo quanto afferma il rapporto di Reem Alsalem, nonché tutti i sostenitori del reato universale, il reato di surrogazione di maternità, a tutela della dignità della gestante, si applica anche quanto il consenso c’è. Dunque il consenso assume caratteristiche e valore completamente diverso a seconda dell’uso strumentale e ideologico che la politica ne sta facendo. Sarebbe come dire che in certi casi non graditi al governo, il reato di violenza sessuale che tutela solo ed esclusivamente la libertà personale, si applica anche se c’è il pieno consenso della donna.

In Europa, la direttiva anti-tratta condanna solo la surrogazione che comporta sfruttamento, lasciando agli Stati la possibilità di regolare la GPA. La recente risoluzione del Parlamento europeo, nell’ambito della Gender Equality Strategy (Strategia per l’eguaglianza di genere) però, ha aggiunto ambiguità: il passaggio secondo cui “la maternità surrogata, che comporta sfruttamento, deve essere condannata” può essere interpretato in modi diversi. La lettura più coerente è quella che distingue chiaramente tra pratiche sfruttative — da condannare — e percorsi autodeterminati e tutelati. Ma resta urgente una chiarezza normativa e linguistica che oggi manca.

Ecco perché, su un tema tanto delicato, dovremmo tornare alla realtà, ai dati, ai diritti. Oggi si respira una profonda preoccupazione nell’affrontare i temi legati alla surrogazione di maternità, è difficile trovare o promuovere dibattiti pubblici perché la formulazione del reato, che estende la perseguibilità anche a varie e ambigue forme di pubblicizzazione, di fatto spaventa con effetti deterrenti. Occorre quindi riportare il tema tra le persone, non per promuovere una procedura di fecondazione assistita che sicuramente coinvolge molti aspetti personali e delicati, ma per informare correttamente le persone che esistono forme regolamentate e rispettose dei diritti e le volontà di tutte le persone coinvolte.

L'articolo La gravidanza per altri a un anno dall’entrata in vigore del reato universale proviene da Associazione Luca Coscioni.