Texas questions rights of a fetus after a prison guard who had a stillborn baby sues

Link

The state of Texas is questioning the legal rights of an “unborn child” in arguing against a lawsuit brought by a prison guard who says she had a stillborn baby because prison officials refused to let her leave work for more than two hours after she began feeling intense pains similar to contractions.

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.

In a new lawsuit filed in Texas, the state of Texas is taking a position in court that an unborn baby has no Constitutional rights. This is in direct opposition to their stance that even a heart beat qualifies as a life and immediately grants rights.

Salia Issa was was employed with the Texas Dept of Corrections and was pregnant when she got contraction pains at work. She was not allowed to leave work and by the time she was allowed off work and drove herself to the hospital, she had lost the baby. The hospital informed her that if she'd gotten there sooner, they could have saved the baby.

She is now suing for medical expenses, funeral costs for the unborn baby and damages. The state of Texas is taking the stance that just because there are several statutes that guarantee the rights for unborn children, the 14th Amendment does not, and therefore unborn children have no 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. Issa was seven months’ pregnant in 2021, when she reported for work at a state prison in the West Texas city of Abilene and began having a pregnancy emergency.

Do you support the state of Texas in arguing that unborn children have no rights under the 14th Amendment?

Do they have rights before or after a certain pregnancy date? When they are born or before they are born? Does it matter if there is a law on record protecting them when they are born, or are their rights inherent?

a reply to: Mahogany

The kid has Rights before they are born. Kill a pregnant woman and you get charged with 2 murders, not one.

if the lady wins the case that would mean the fetus does have rights

a reply to: Mahogany

story has no link to real court paper saying what they say

originally posted by: WingDingLuey
if the lady wins the case that would mean the fetus does have rights

yea, this is an interesting one. watching the backflips will be spectacular.

Well..... That's one way to create law. Prove the unborn has rights then that threatens abortion in the states that have it.

a reply to: Mahogany

If they were smart, Texas Powers that Be should settle this case. I mean, I haven't read the deets, but the pregnant woman had the right to leave to seek medical attention, regardless of whether or not her fetus had rights. I'm sure the State of Texas would have a different reaction if the pregnant woman refused to stop working and get medical attention, when she knew her fetus was in distress, so that she could make a few more bucks by finishing her shift.

a reply to: DAVID64

The kid has Rights before they are born. Kill a pregnant woman and you get charged with 2 murders, not one.

was thinking the same thing, if they charge someone with murder for killing a pregnant woman and herunborn child or causing the death of her unborn child. what's the difference in a civil suit.

Texas: Under a law signed June 20, 2003, and effective September 1, 2003, the protections of the entire criminal code extend to “an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.” The law does not apply to “conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child” or to “a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent.” (SB 319, Prenatal Protection Act)
State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims

the answer is money.

a reply to: Mahogany

Two words. Unintended Consequences.

The State can't have it's cake and eat it too. And it's laughable that when something affects the State they want to deflect blame. But when it's the people they want to come down hard on them. I'll have my popcorn ready to watch the drama that ensues.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Mahogany

The kid has Rights before they are born. Kill a pregnant woman and you get charged with 2 murders, not one.

But call that child a fetus and half the country wants the right to kill it.

The snake is eating its own tail here.

Without seeing the court docs, it is hard to tell what specifically is being contested. When an adult person gets injured at work, nobody is questioning their legal status of being a living human having the protections thereof, but there will often be contention about who is responsible.

The court docs would make it more clear as to why the state is fighting this particular case. Perhaps she didn't indicate she was having a medical emergency clearly and they said you need to keep working. There is just too much missing. It doesn't appear they are saying it wasn't a life, therefore you get no money. It would be the same if she had her appendix burst.

i have never heard of a case where someone wasn't allowed to leave for illness. You can literally do it at any time in any job and nobody can stop you.

This will be great though if they put a stronger legal determination on the pre-birth life status.

I hope she wins just to spite the state authorities for their role in every part of this story. Firstly for denying this lady permission to leave, and then being little bitches about it in court.

a reply to: grey580

what if state is trying to lose on purpose?

It's immoral and very wrong, even ghoulish for anyone to claim an unborn baby has no rights. Human rights, constitutional rights, the right to life.

Some pretty rotten folks running that Texas prison for sure, and anyone siding with this action against this woman.

originally posted by: WingDingLuey
a reply to: grey580

what if state is trying to lose on purpose?

Hush your mouth. (I think that may be the strategy here)

a reply to: Halfswede

You can literally do it at any time in any job and nobody can stop you.

Most businesses encourage such.
Especially after COVID.

A pregnant woman, if still working, should be allowed to put her health and the baby's health as a priority.

First off, I don't think pregnant women should be required to work past a certain point in their term, and if I had my way there would be isnurance policies in place to make accomodations for pregnant employees, but I'm also an idealist.

They should have let her go to the doctors.

The fact that they forced her, in her condition, to remain on duty infuriates me to no end.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

think about why the woman didn't just leave or call an ambulance ???

a reply to: WingDingLuey

I've worked for abusive employers in my time and put up with things I don't dare talk about because I needed the job.

My heart goes out to her.

it always comes down to want versus unwant. if the baby is wanted it is murder if it is unwanted it is legal abortion.a reply to: Mahogany