Pregnant Women Lose Civil Rights

[Dana7360]

This is happening all over states that have imposed restrictions on abortion. One case that wasn't in the article that happened just a year or so ago. A pregnant woman in Texas was found on the floor of her home by her husband. She wasn't breathing and he called 9-11. She was resuscitated and taken to the hospital. She was diagnosed as brain dead. However because she was 14 weeks pregnant, the hospital ignored her written wishes of DNR and not hooking her up to machines to keep her alive, the hospital hooked her up to machines. The husband had to go to court to get her taken off the machines. The state of Texas tried to incubate a mostly dead fetus in a dead woman's body.

This is what happens to women when their rights are taken from them only because she's pregnant and the state gives the fetus more rights than the living woman.




WITH the success of Republicans in the midterm elections and the passage of Tennessee’s anti-abortion amendment, we can expect ongoing efforts to ban abortion and advance the “personhood” rights of fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses.

But it is not just those who support abortion rights who have reason to worry. Anti-abortion measures pose a risk to all pregnant women, including those who want to be pregnant.

Such laws are increasingly being used as the basis for arresting women who have no intention of ending a pregnancy and for preventing women from making their own decisions about how they will give birth.

How does this play out? Based on the belief ..

More at link.
Edited for copyright compliance.

Lynn M. Paltrow is a lawyer and the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, where Jeanne Flavin, a sociology professor at Fordham University, is the president of the board of directors.

Pregnant, and No Civil Rights - NYTimes.com

 

[Katzndogz]

How can you claim that a woman is brain dead and put on life support to save the life of the baby, THEN claim that the rights of a living woman were violated?

 

[DriftingSand]

The odds of this sort of RARE situation occurring on a routine basis are one in ten million. Millions of babies shouldn't be killed to satisfy the whims of those who use such freak occurrences as "proof" that "person-hood laws" are somehow bad. It's like banning all driving because one person drove off of the Niagara Falls.

 

[Dana7360]

How can you claim that a woman is brain dead and put on life support to save the life of the baby, THEN claim that the rights of a living woman were violated?

She and her husband were EMTs and knew what paperwork to complete to prevent being put on machines.

She had a written Do Not Resuscitate and written orders to never hook her up to a machine.

The husband tried to prevent it and then later tried to get the machines turned off. The hospital refused and the husband had to go to court to get the machines turned off. Her husband's and her civil rights were violated.

As with all the women in that article. One of the women died.

 

[Dana7360]

The odds of this sort of RARE situation occurring on a routine basis are one in ten million. Millions of babies shouldn't be killed to satisfy the whims of those who use such freak occurrences as "proof" that "person-hood laws" are somehow bad. It's like banning all driving because one person drove off of the Niagara Falls.

So women have to lose their rights because they're pregnant?

Do you realize that when the woman in the article died, so did the fetus?

No woman should be forced to die because she's pregnant and it went wrong. Unfortunately it's going to happen even more and keep happening all over American states that take women's civil rights from them because they're pregnant.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The only rights that a fetus is entitled to in the first and second trimester are those that the woman concerned are willing to grant the fetus. The rights of the woman override that of the fetus until the 3rd trimester. If, during the 3rd trimester, there is a threat to the life of the woman then her rights override that of the fetus otherwise she is expected to carry to term.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We have a certain segment of our population who wants to meddle in and control the lives of others. Basic rights, as guaranteed by our Constitution, have no meaning to them.

 

[Katzndogz]

How can you claim that a woman is brain dead and put on life support to save the life of the baby, THEN claim that the rights of a living woman were violated?

She and her husband were EMTs and knew what paperwork to complete to prevent being put on machines.

She had a written Do Not Resuscitate and written orders to never hook her up to a machine.

The husband tried to prevent it and then later tried to get the machines turned off. The hospital refused and the husband had to go to court to get the machines turned off. Her husband's and her civil rights were violated.

As with all the women in that article. One of the women died.

She wasn't being resuscitated. Her husband just didn't want to be saddled with a baby which is no reason to murder the baby. The civil rights of a dead person can't be violated. It's a matter of law. The dead have no civil rights. So HER civil rights were not violated. The husband's civil rights were not violated since nothing was done to him. The only person that had any civil rights was the baby.

Since Marlise did not have an abortion, it could be presumed that she wanted her baby alive. Keeping her on life support until the baby's birth is the conclusion that the evidence suggests.

 

[martybegan]

How can you claim that a woman is brain dead and put on life support to save the life of the baby, THEN claim that the rights of a living woman were violated?

She and her husband were EMTs and knew what paperwork to complete to prevent being put on machines.

She had a written Do Not Resuscitate and written orders to never hook her up to a machine.

The husband tried to prevent it and then later tried to get the machines turned off. The hospital refused and the husband had to go to court to get the machines turned off. Her husband's and her civil rights were violated.

As with all the women in that article. One of the women died.

She wasn't being resuscitated. Her husband just didn't want to be saddled with a baby which is no reason to murder the baby. The civil rights of a dead person can't be violated. It's a matter of law. The dead have no civil rights. So HER civil rights were not violated. The husband's civil rights were not violated since nothing was done to him. The only person that had any civil rights was the baby.

Since Marlise did not have an abortion, it could be presumed that she wanted her baby alive. Keeping her on life support until the baby's birth is the conclusion that the evidence suggests.

The hospital also has to worry about lawsuits if the opposite happened, they did nothing to save her or the fetus, and the husband WANTED an attempt to be made so save either.

The OP's post is also misleading, as this is a unique case, and people keep forgetting the state can and does impose restrictions on abortion past vitality.

 

[Derideo_Te]

How can you claim that a woman is brain dead and put on life support to save the life of the baby, THEN claim that the rights of a living woman were violated?

She and her husband were EMTs and knew what paperwork to complete to prevent being put on machines.

She had a written Do Not Resuscitate and written orders to never hook her up to a machine.

The husband tried to prevent it and then later tried to get the machines turned off. The hospital refused and the husband had to go to court to get the machines turned off. Her husband's and her civil rights were violated.

As with all the women in that article. One of the women died.

She wasn't being resuscitated. Her husband just didn't want to be saddled with a baby which is no reason to murder the baby. The civil rights of a dead person can't be violated. It's a matter of law. The dead have no civil rights. So HER civil rights were not violated. The husband's civil rights were not violated since nothing was done to him. The only person that had any civil rights was the baby.

Since Marlise did not have an abortion, it could be presumed that she wanted her baby alive. Keeping her on life support until the baby's birth is the conclusion that the evidence suggests.

Do you have any clue whatsoever as to what it would cost to keep a dead body viable for the remaining 25 weeks until that 14 week fetus reached full term? You are talking about 6 months of ICU hospitalization. Are you prepared to cover those kinds of medical costs which would probably total a couple of million dollars? Do you know any EMT's that make that kind of income? Would forcing the husband into bankruptcy not be a violation of his rights?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The OP's post is also misleading, as this is a unique case, and people keep forgetting the state can and does impose restrictions on abortion past vitality.

14 weeks is not "post vitality".

 

[DriftingSand]

The odds of this sort of RARE situation occurring on a routine basis are one in ten million. Millions of babies shouldn't be killed to satisfy the whims of those who use such freak occurrences as "proof" that "person-hood laws" are somehow bad. It's like banning all driving because one person drove off of the Niagara Falls.

So women have to lose their rights because they're pregnant?

Do you realize that when the woman in the article died, so did the fetus?

No woman should be forced to die because she's pregnant and it went wrong. Unfortunately it's going to happen even more and keep happening all over American states that take women's civil rights from them because they're pregnant.

Are you talking about the "rights" of unborn women?

 

[martybegan]

The OP's post is also misleading, as this is a unique case, and people keep forgetting the state can and does impose restrictions on abortion past vitality.

14 weeks is not "post vitality".

Yes. And? The OP's post is till misleading, using a unique case to make general conclusions. Conclusions that ignore the fact that the State can and does regulate abortions, even if it is a matter of when they are legal during gestation.

 

[Ernie S.]

We have a certain segment of our population who wants to meddle in and control the lives of others. Basic rights, as guaranteed by our Constitution, have no meaning to them.

Do you want me to have health insurance? Is that not meddling and controlling the lives of others?

Ahhh but your cause is noble. I see.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The OP's post is also misleading, as this is a unique case, and people keep forgetting the state can and does impose restrictions on abortion past vitality.

14 weeks is not "post vitality".

Yes. And? The OP's post is till misleading, using a unique case to make general conclusions. Conclusions that ignore the fact that the State can and does regulate abortions, even if it is a matter of when they are legal during gestation.

The OP was not misleading because it specifically stated that the fetus was 14 weeks in that case which was a clear overreach of the anti-rights brigade. Since the OP documented many other instances to substantiate the conclusion it was not in the least "misleading".

Your mischaracterization of the OP is misleading but since you cannot factually refute a single one of the cases provided you are just flinging out baseless allegations. That is par for the course since you have zero substance to contribute.

 

[jwoodie]

How can you claim that a woman is brain dead and put on life support to save the life of the baby, THEN claim that the rights of a living woman were violated?

She and her husband were EMTs and knew what paperwork to complete to prevent being put on machines.

She had a written Do Not Resuscitate and written orders to never hook her up to a machine.

The husband tried to prevent it and then later tried to get the machines turned off. The hospital refused and the husband had to go to court to get the machines turned off. Her husband's and her civil rights were violated.

As with all the women in that article. One of the women died.

She wasn't being resuscitated. Her husband just didn't want to be saddled with a baby which is no reason to murder the baby. The civil rights of a dead person can't be violated. It's a matter of law. The dead have no civil rights. So HER civil rights were not violated. The husband's civil rights were not violated since nothing was done to him. The only person that had any civil rights was the baby.

Since Marlise did not have an abortion, it could be presumed that she wanted her baby alive. Keeping her on life support until the baby's birth is the conclusion that the evidence suggests.

Do you have any clue whatsoever as to what it would cost to keep a dead body viable for the remaining 25 weeks until that 14 week fetus reached full term? You are talking about 6 months of ICU hospitalization. Are you prepared to cover those kinds of medical costs which would probably total a couple of million dollars? Do you know any EMT's that make that kind of income? Would forcing the husband into bankruptcy not be a violation of his rights?

Another bogus argument. Hospitals routinely write off uncollectible charges, assuming there was no health insurance to begin with. Inability to pay medical bills is almost never the sole reason for bankruptcy. There is also Medicaid, which merely requires people to pay for some of these costs before the government picks up the tab.

I doubt the DNR order was signed after she became pregnant, so her wishes regarding this particular circumstance are unknown. This is analogous to a will that was executed before having children. Should their interests be ignored just because the will hadn't been updated?

 

[Dana7360]

We have a certain segment of our population who wants to meddle in and control the lives of others. Basic rights, as guaranteed by our Constitution, have no meaning to them.

Women are now being put in jail for having miscarriages. Women are now being forced to have medical procedures that they don't want. One woman died because of it. We even saw a dead woman hooked up to machines to incubate a mostly dead fetus. She was 14 weeks pregnant when she was found not breathing.

We will see more of this happening in America.

I'm so glad I don't live in one of those states. If I did, I would find some way to move to a state like mine where this sort of thing can't happen. I've told my daughter that it's not safe for her to go to those states with these laws. I've told her that she will not only lose her birth control but be made a criminal for trying to save her life if her pregnancy goes wrong.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do you want me to have health insurance? Is that not meddling and controlling the lives of others?

The state has an interest in having a healthy population of workers. The alternative was to implement universal healthcare however the extreme right obstructed that proposal so the Heritage Foundation proposal was implemented instead. That was a rightwing plan that included tax penalties for those who didn't have healthcare.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Inability to pay medical bills is almost never the sole reason for bankruptcy.

 

[DriftingSand]

Do you want me to have health insurance? Is that not meddling and controlling the lives of others?

The state has an interest in having a healthy population of workers. The alternative was to implement universal healthcare however the extreme right obstructed that proposal so the Heritage Foundation proposal was implemented instead. That was a rightwing plan that included tax penalties for those who didn't have healthcare.

Workers must be born before being "healthy" producers.