"Officials argue ‘unborn child’ may not have rights under US constitution in lawsuit defense over prison guard stillbirth
In defending themselves against a lawsuit, Texas officials have argued that an “unborn child” may not have rights under the US constitution, putting them in tension with arguments made by the state’s attorney general’s office as well as Republican lawmakers to support restrictions to abortion.
A guard at the state prison in the community of Abilene filed the lawsuit in question after she asserted that her superiors barred her from going to the hospital while she experienced intense labor pains and what she suspected were contractions while seven months pregnant and on duty.
The guard – who is named Salia Issa – was finally able to leave to go to the hospital two and a half hours after the pain started. She was rushed into emergency surgery after doctors were unable to find a fetal heartbeat and she ultimately delivered the baby in a stillbirth.
The lawsuit claims that if Issa had been able to get to the hospital sooner, the baby would have survived.
Issa and her husband sued the Texas department of criminal justice and three supervisors, arguing the state caused the death of their child. They seek restitution in medical and funeral costs and for pain and suffering.
The prison agency and the Texas attorney general’s office have argued in defense of the lawsuit that the agency should not be held responsible for the stillbirth and that it is not clear the fetus had rights as a person. Both entities advance those positions despite consistent arguments made in lockstep by the attorney general’s office and Texas legislators that “unborn children” should be recognized as people starting at fertilization."
*************************
Texas can't make up its mind: Does a fetus have rights or not? In the case of Kate Cox, the Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of a doomed fetus over the living mother, giving the fetus preferential human rights over the mother.
In the case of the prison guard who was denied permission to seek medical help as she went into premature labor, which resulted in a stillbirth, the state of Texas is arguing that the 7-month fetus has no human rights.
What can we deduce from these two cases in Texas?
My takeaway is that it all depends on what the politicians want from each case, and the tragic situations these pregnant women found themselves in have nothing to do with protecting "the sanctity of life" -- the pregnant women's nor the fetuses'. These cases appear to depend on what outcomes the Texas politicians want to further their careers.
When will politicians learn to keep their noses and careers out of girls' and women's wombs.
It's obvious from these two cases that the politicians and judges don't know what they're doing, and they're playing with girl's and women's lives.
40 comments:
Federalism... for or against?
Beautiful blog
"FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
Federalism... for or against?"
Breathing or not breathing...for or against.
Can't tell from your comments. You seem to be a universalist, and not a federalist. In other words, you have no respect for people's independence to live as they see fit. You're a control freak.
-FJ : "...you have no respect for people's independence to live as they see fit. You're a control freak."
Says the guy who shitposts* on a regular basis here and cannot let anyone's comment go by without stating his amateur psychological assumptions about people he disagrees with.
*shitposting
SLANG
noun: shit-posting
the activity of posting deliberately provocative or off-topic comments on social media, typically in order to upset others or distract from the main conversation.
Have a nice day.
-FJ "In other words, you have no respect for people's independence to live as they see fit."
I posted about the state of Texas that has no respect for a woman's right to live as she sees fit and not have the State intrude on her personal medical and reproductive rights.
Perhaps you misread my post.
Have a nice day.
Federalism for or against?
Okay look -FJ... I'm not for a states rights perspective that mindlessly, or needlessly, choose your poison, inflicts suffering on the American people. I think this about covers it for me...
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
When states violate the above, they forfeit the right to claim their rights. We saw it with slavery, Jim Crow laws, education discrimination, red lining, etc., etc.
It's like parenting... when your kid behaves, he or she can exercise more and more rights. When they misbehave, the parents enforce their will to rectify the situation.
And in our little example, that means making sure the states are indeed working to provide a more perfect union, establishing justice in their states, insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty for all the people as equally as they can who reside in those states.
Now, I may be wrong, and you can disagree, but from what I've seen, we have some states that cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Left to their own devices, we've seen them go to war to defend slavery, openly deny POC equal education opportunities, deny women their rights to reproductive health care and yes, abortion. We've seen them sanction redlining, and to this day, according to a very conservative SCOTUS, even work to purposefully disenfranchise minority voters.
So no, in my experience, if I have to choose between states rights or federalism, I'll choose the latter. It will not be perfect, but from what I've seen, it does put a check on some states and peoples worst impulses.
The "right thing" for you, and the "right thing" for them, may be different. The resident's of Texas can choose. So can you. That's the beauty of federalism.
I feel for the Issa'a and their dead child. But I couldn't help but LOL at what a bunch of morons Texas officials are.
"-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
The "right thing" for you, and the "right thing" for them, may be different. The resident's of Texas can choose. So can you. That's the beauty of federalism."
Kate Cox CHOSE to end her doomed pregnancy and protect her health so she could bear more children. A OB/GYN deemed her pregnancy doomed. A judge deemed her condition and the fetus's condition were severe enough to grant her an exception under Texas strict anti-abortion laws to receive a medical abortion.
The AG of Texas didn't like that judge's ruling, nor did he give a flying donut about the Cox's predicament, so he shopped the ruling to the Texas Supreme Court where they were all anti-abortion Republicans, and their JUDICIAL OPINION was that Kate Cox's doctors' MEDICAL OPINION wasn't good enough for the judges to grant her her CHOICE to end the doomed pregnancy.
Your claim that Texans can CHOOSE is a lie. They cannot CHOOSE anything where it concerns a woman CHOICE to end a catastrophic pregnancy. In that case the woman or girl has to CHOOSE to endanger her life or, if she has the resources, be forced to leave the state of Texas so she can exercise her CHOICE.
The state of Texas has given politicians and judges the power to overrule medical science in cases involving catastrophic pregnancies.
What about the woman who lost her 7-month fetus because her CHOICE to leave work and seek medical attention as she experienced early contractions -- what about her CHOICE that was denied and caused the death of her fetus?
You must be in some sort of a fog to have written what you did.
Women and girls in those particular situations HAD NO CHOICE. Only the Republican politicians and judges have control over their bodies.
Welcome to Gilead.
Did she go out of state and get an abortion? Yes, she did.
On Monday, her lawyers announced she had left the state to terminate her pregnancy.
All that fuss... for nothing.
Welcome to the dissolution of compassion and reason in Texas and elsewhere. The creeping crud dismantling democracy and the rule of law.
MAGA Republican Cultism.
" -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
Did she go out of state and get an abortion? Yes, she did.
On Monday, her lawyers announced she had left the state to terminate her pregnancy.
All that fuss... for nothing."
Perfectly spoken just like a financially privileged white person. It costs you nothing to be so callous.
I just finished reading a story about a young married woman in Tennessee who had to leave her state to get a medically necessary abortion. Her uterus lost its amniotic fluid and the fetus died. She did not qualify for an abortion exception in her Red state. She needed to set up a go-fund-me page to go to another state for the medically necessary abortion.
This is happening a lot more than you care to know.
Not all girls and women and their families are financially situated enough to shell out the money need for travel, the clinic, hotel/motel, meals when they have to leave their states.
Your dismissive and cavalier attitude is what women and girls have come to expect from men who never have to face these sorts of extraordinary medical emergencies, and could care less about what the medieval religionists have wrought on the girls and women of America.
NO WOMAN OR GIRL SHOULD HAVE TO MAKE A TRIP OUT OF HER STATE TO RECEIVE MEDICAL CARE FOR A PREGNANCY THAT GOES WRONG.
The Republican Party will pay dearly for their anti-women, anti-mother abuses.
Kate Cox had plenty of rich white woman privilege. So as I said at the beginning, "Who cares"? No need to get all wee-wee'd up.
Apparently Kate Cox's "Karen" calls to the Planned Parenthood "managers" and DNC are achieving their desired results. G_d forbid a white woman suffer any inconveniences.
"Joe Conservative said...
Kate Cox had plenty of rich white woman privilege. So as I said at the beginning, "Who cares"? No need to get all wee-wee'd up."
Only a twisted patriarchal mind would call having a woman have go to court to beg and get permission from non-medical bureaucrats to have autonomy over her own body and save her life "privilege."
No man has to do that.
You keep revealing yourself in every word you write.
And it's unbecoming in the most revolting way.
I'm surprised that you're not celebrating Texas for the black woman's "still-birth". Why is that? Killing babies so white privileged women aren't "inconvenienced" seems to be your "thing".
btw - Why do you assume that the 2 hour delay caused the babies death? I would conclude that the guard went into labour BECAUSE the baby was already dead.
Joe Conservative "I would conclude that the guard went into labour BECAUSE the baby was already dead."
The guard in this case asked to leave work because she was having contractions and she wasn't at full term. She was denied.
Those are the facts.
Unless you're an obstetrician, your comment, "I would conclude" is speculation and nothing else.
"Seven months pregnant, Issa said she quickly alerted her supervisors. She told them she needed to go to the hospital but knew prison policy wouldn’t allow her to leave her post until someone could replace her.
No one came for hours.
Issa kept calling for relief, but her supervisor repeatedly refused her, even telling her she was lying, according to a federal lawsuit filed against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and prison officials." --Texas Tribune
The state of Texas brags about the "sanctity of life" as its excuse for its draconian prohibitions against abortion, but apparently didn't apply it to the woman prison guard who was in danger of losing her fetus. Texas practices situation ethics where pregnant girls and women are concerned -- it has nothing to do with protecting life.
"Joe Conservative said...
I'm surprised that you're not celebrating Texas for the black woman's "still-birth". Why is that? Killing babies so white privileged women aren't "inconvenienced" seems to be your "thing".
And being a misogynistic crank yours.
btw - You do realize that the prison incident happened pre-Dobbs, right? Under your "abortion is totally legal nationwide" scenario...
The state’s argument relies largely — but not exclusively — on the timing of the tragedy. Issa lost her unborn child seven months before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the famous Dobbs decision.
“This Court need not weigh into the difficult question of whether, post-Dobbs, an unborn child possesses constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment,” wrote Benjamin Dower, with the attorney general’s special litigation office, in a January filing. “Even if he or she does, that right was not clearly established on November 15, 2021.”
How can Texas officials be considered "hypocritical" if they're defending the pre-Dobbs status quo?
Shaw tells Joe Conservative to do better and they decide better looks like doubling down on their patriarchal, misogynistic, and racist crap.
As far as I can tell Joe Conservative broke the social contract so the niceties afforded to those who follow the contract are no longer deserved by Joe Conservative aka the three faced troll.
What social contract? The one where We The People agree to live by a specific set of laws, in this case the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We agree in the public square to respect we all have rights and to act accordingly. We don't have to like each other but we do have to respect their right to believe as they do, but no where does it say we have to respect their actual belief.
Joe Conservative continues to disrespect those who post here with their projection of racism, a belief they hold near and dear to their heart but which most of those who post here hold as abhorrent.
Why would we celebrate a woman losing her child? What does it matter the color of their skin? And last I knew Joe Conservative was not an OB/GYN, a medical doctor, nor have they ever claimed such a knowledge set. Their questioning as to why the baby died is more crap.
The fact the expectant mom was denied medical care (begin Drill Sargent mode) BECAUSE HER SHIFT WASN'T OVER IS THE POINT!!!(end Drill Sargent mode) When she needed care she needed care. If she'd been male and needed medical care there would have been bells and whistles along with the machine that goes ping in five minutes. Because she's a she, well... the stats tell a tale of men ignoring how female physiology differs from a male. The stories (anecdotal) all talk of pains dismissed to 'that time of the month' or 'extreme emotions'. The truth is males assumed they knew it all but failed to study the female form beyond the obvious differences. Medical science, along with many other practices, needs a major overhaul in how they view the world and how they practice their craft.
Life has taught me a few things Joe Conservative. I hope it does the same with you.
I only call you a racist, Grey One, because you are one. You give Black people no credit for being able to defend themselves (white savior complex). It's the soft racism of low expectations.
pps - Maybe pregnant women shouldn't be prison guards, since this proves that they're inherently unreliable, therefore incompetent.
"-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
How can Texas officials be considered "hypocritical" if they're defending the pre-Dobbs status quo?"
Inane comment. The state of Texas was negligent in not allowing the pregnant woman (who was in danger of miscarrying) access to immediate medical care. Medical personnel have stated this:
"If Issa had gotten to the hospital sooner, medical personnel told her, the baby would have survived..."
Can anyone imagine if that prison had a white male prison guard clutching his chest and complaining of searing pains that they would him have made him wait hours until a guard to cover his post was called in? Ha!
This has nothing to do with Dobbs.
This is about the state of Texas's hypocrisy in its claim to care about the unborn. In the counter suit, the state of Texas claims the fetus had no "personhood." And two years later the state of Texas denied a woman carrying a doomed fetus an abortion because of their claim of that fetus's "personhood."
"-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
pps - Maybe pregnant women shouldn't be prison guards, since this proves that they're inherently unreliable, therefore incompetent."
Misogynistic crank says what?
"Issa and her husband, Fiston Rukengeza, filed a law suit in 2022 against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice seeking monetary damages to cover her medical bills, pain and suffering, and other things, including the funeral expenses of the unborn child.
Issa alleges that her supervisor told her: 'You just want to go home.'
The state attorney general's office and prison system have asked a judge to dismiss the case, and Ken Paxton, the Republican attorney general, has argued that the unborn child did not have rights.
Paxton is known for his strong pro-life position, declaring on the day that Roe v. Wade was overturned: 'I look forward to defending the pro-life laws of Texas and the lives of all unborn children moving forward.'"
Hypocrites!
Row row row your boat merrily down the stream.
Merrily merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream.
Life's illusions are simply thoughts created by the "ego" to protect the mistaken sense of self.
Self interest is at the root of most of life's suffering.
And the merry-go-round of samsara continues.
Gang, let's remember the self defined reason -FJ exists and posts here and elsewhere... "To drive lefties crazy!"
He is not here to be convinced, make a serious argument or even enter into an honest discussion. He's here as a troll.
We say all the time, "Believe" Trump when he tells you what he is going to do. How is the -FJ cabal any different?
Believe what he says... his joy in life is driving people on the left, nuts.
He sees no need for common ground, cannot be persuaded and has no interest in real discussion. He exists and participates only for the joy he gets watching the left respond to his shape shifting misdirections, both siderisms and strawmen expressed through a never ending list of one and two sentence snide remarks, inane comments and video links.
He can't help himself.
Don't feed the troll and let him overwhelm you, as he's done at other now closed blogs.
Good advice, Dave.
I often forget that -FJ and his other personas are not honest commenters.
I agree with Dave Miller. While I still love to read your blog, I started a while back mostly skipping reading the comments or glossing over them since they really have been hijacked. It ends up just back and forth between folks trying to make sense of the troll's silly comments. The troll adds absolutely nothing of importance to the dialogue.
possumlady
Yes. I keep forgetting that the -FJ is not interested in a back and forth conversation. He’s interested only in showing off and in disruption.
He, apparently, can’t control his impulses to dominate and hijack blog comment sections.
It's hard to do actual back and forth's when half the "backs" are censored. Jes sayin'.
Joe Conservative said...
It's hard to do actual back and forth's when half the "backs" are censored. Jes sayin'.
I just counted back to THREE DAYS of comments you posted. (I do not delete them, I choose to keep them and decide which ones I want published -- my blog, my prerogative.)
In THREE DAYS of commenting you and your personas left THIRTY-SIX comments here at P.E. in Comment Moderation.
You do the math. That's an average of 12 comments a day over 3 days!
I do have a life other than monitoring this blog, and other people leave comments to be monitored and published as well.
Most of your comments get published. Count yourself lucky.
What you fail to take into account is that I must respond to several posters at a time, not just one (or 2 if you count skud, and we are NOT on the same page). If you don't want your other posters to get a response from me, perhaps you should tell them that my silence isn't "consent" or "agreement"... it's merely you cutting off my responses.
In other words, your selective moderation of comments creates and encourages troll-like behaviors. And once you've created a troll, validate your troll creation policies and prevent any meaningful back and forth.
Again Joe, Shaw is pretty generous with you, at least IMHO.
Both you and Skud, and anyone else who is civil, can post dissenting comments here. You can even be critical of her and other bloggers as long as the language is respectable and your points backed up with some evidence.
We however are not accorded that same generosity by some of the more conservative bloggers, because we are "too nasty." Apparently, dissent is nasty for them.
So be happy. You're getting to comment, most of your stuff gets published and at the end of the day, it's not yours, or my blog, so we can all comment, but we get published at Shaw's pleasure.
As AOW always said, her blog, her rules.
I accepted it there, and you should here.
As Ducky used to say... cheers!
I get the feeling from Joe/-FJ/Thersites' complaints that he wants my blog to conform to how HE believes it should be run, not how I run it.
I find that a bit self-serving.
A bit self serving is being generously magnanimous Shaw. FJ/Joe Con/Thersites etc. are completely self serving and intentionally trollish.
Post a Comment