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’s 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.
...
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.
I understand that it's common practice to parties to take diametrically opposite positions in different litigation. But it looks pretty bad for Texas to claim that a fetus isn't a person when it's to their advantage to deny the very thing that they have been arguing for ages.
2 comments:
Overturning Roe created many Reductio Ad Absurdum opportunities:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iepg5Q4rBAQ&list=PLPnZfvKID1Sje5jWxt-4CSZD7bUI4gSPS&index=53
This should be the smoking gun that settles it once and for all. Thank you Texas.
Post a Comment