Texas questions rights of a fetus after a prison guard who had a stillborn baby sues
Texas questions rights of a fetus after a prison guard who had a stillborn baby sues
The state of Texas is questioning the legal rights of an “unborn child” in arguing against a lawsuit brought by a state prison guard who says she had a stillborn baby because of working conditions.
Completely independent of the baby having rights or not it is obviously endangering someone if they do not let them leave to see a doctor when the person has pain.
86The takeaway is that being pro-life is a very profitable enterprise until it isn’t, then it’s just another liability to the bottom line that needs to be stripped away. This is what it looks like to serve greed
54I honestly hope they’re too far up their own asses to realize its a liability yet. If they consider it profitable into next years election cycle, and the trend of the last few special elections holds, then having them double down could really benefit the democrats.
Then, maybe the US could get the majority required to enshrine abortion rights into law nationally and put an end to this nonsense.
I acknowledge this could all just be wishful thinking, however.
5This is what it looks like to serve greed
I disagree only slightly. This is what it looks like to control women's bodies and deny any sense of agency.
Doctors tend not to believe women when they are in pain, or what they experience in their own bodies. This is even worse for black women, which is why more black women die during or after childbirth. Even Serena Williams almost died after giving birth because the doctors didn't believe her.
4Personally I don’t see a difference. Controlling women’s bodies and denying them free agency causes financial strain and keeps the funnel of resources flowing in one direction. Any moral justification or religious zealotry is just part of the act used to sell this idea to the small brained and weak willed, lining pockets is the real endgame. How women are treated by doctors is simply a symptom of the system.
1
Imo the baby isn't really important here. It's the fact that she wasn't allowed to leave after experiencing abnormal pain while pregnant! We should be taking so much better care of pregnant people.
52Permanently Deleted
14Maybe I’m missing something like sarcasm or something but, we do. Maybe you are trying to make this a talking experience so we all could learn but I can’t tell.
8Weird. You don't think they would be suggesting that the US has the highest rate among countries of similar wealth? (/s)
8
I wish I could say I’m surprised.
To the right, the “rights of a fetus” are only relevant when its convenient to their agenda. Otherwise, they don’t exist. They’ll shamelessly use whatever arguments are in their arsenal to achieve their version of reality. Consistency and hypocrisy be damned.
36Hypocrisy is pretty on brand for Republicans.
More proof that the anti-abortion movement is about controlling women, not about being "pro-life".
36Where's the pro-life crowd at?
27Not on the internet with all them filthy libs.
10they're not with the filthy liberal Jesus and his weak-ass "turn the other cheek" either.
7
Remarkably consistent.
"We control your body, you don't. Need an abortion? Too bad. Need to see a doctor? Too bad. Pregnant with abnormal pain? Too bad. Need childcare? Too bad."
26GOP is so remarkably despicable
8
The throughline here is that Texas will take whatever position most hurts the powerless.
23There's a slightly different line: whatever position hurts women.
6
3
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The argument from the Texas attorney general’s office appears to be in tension with positions it has previously taken in defending abortion restrictions, contending all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court that “unborn children” should be recognized as people with legal rights.
“Just because several statutes define an individual to include an unborn child does not mean that the Fourteenth Amendment does the same,” they wrote in legal filing that noted that the guard lost her baby before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal right to an abortion established under its landmark Roe v. Wade decision.
That claim came in response to a federal lawsuit brought last year by Salia Issa, who alleges that hospital staff told her they could have saved her baby had she arrived sooner.
While working at the prison, Issa began feeling pains “similar to a contraction” but when she asked to be relived from her post to go to the hospital her supervisors refused and accused her of lying, according to the complaint she filed along with her husband.
Issa, whose suit was first reported by The Texas Tribune, is seeking monetary damages to cover her medical bills, pain and suffering, and other things, including the funeral expenses of the unborn child.
Laura Hermer, a professor at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, described Texas’ legal posture as “seeking to have their cake and eat it too.”
I'm a bot and I'm open source!
21So, they’re hypocrites. Yeah. Seems on brand. It’s either a person and has rights or it’s not. I wish someone would/could bring criminal charges against the supervisors for murder.
22Sounds like she was more a prisoner than the actual prisoners. Denied access to health care seems so wrong, and to be told she was lying on top of it all.
7
why the hell is everyone so focused on the fetus' rights when it was the mother's rights that were denied?
Or is everyone assuming the mother just didn't have any rights?
19As far as I can tell it’s more about the state wanting to have it both ways. They want to be a champion of the unborn while denying the fetus was a person because of it happening before Dobbs.
11
I wish I was more surprised pikachu face.
Unfortunately this seems pretty on brand, and very much celebrated collectively by the people of Texas.
7No, no, no, see the fetus only has rights when it's convenient for those in charge.
6