# Texas law won't allow pregnant woman to be taken off life support **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 4, 2014, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837 "2014-01-04T00:23:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/141 "2014-01-25T05:49:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This decision established the principle that somebody other than the woman who’s pregnant can make a decision about terminating a pregnancy. Fairly sure God’s\* always been able to make that choice, no matter what the woman wants. And in this case, He made her dead, and the most very common and only \*natural \*outcome when a 14 week pregnant woman dies is that the fetus dies with her. \*Or nature, if you prefer. Or biology. Pick the vocabulary word that best fits your world view. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/142 "2014-01-25T06:13:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This decision established the principle that somebody other than the woman who’s pregnant can make a decision about terminating a pregnancy. Get a clue, the decision was not coming from the former her nor from the living next of kin. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Now that the principle’s been established, pro-lifers (or anti-abortionists if you prefer) will work on expanding it to cover more situations. Like if this case has not made me or many others more aware of the underhandedness of the anti-abortionists that are showing how, even in cases with almost no relation to their cause, is that they will impose their views on others. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Their goal will be to make it increasingly difficult for a woman to choose to have an abortion without other people being able to legally interfere with her decision. That is nice Captain Hindsight, we knew that already, what we did not know before was the asshole levels the anti abortionists are willing to reach, and in this case they were willing to make a stand with a case that in reality does not help them at all. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/143 "2014-01-25T06:41:20Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This decision established the principle that somebody other than the woman who’s pregnant can make a decision about terminating a pregnancy. There was no woman who was pregnant. She was dead, so she _wasn’t_. No matter what it was, she wasn’t, except dead. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/144 "2014-01-25T07:32:36Z")
I don’t know what **Little Nemo** is on about, and frankly his posts are a little disturbing. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/145 "2014-01-25T09:18:07Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This decision established the principle that somebody other than the woman who’s pregnant can make a decision about terminating a pregnancy. I guess you _still_ don’t understand power of attorney. It is a best approximation of the (in this case) deceased person’s wishes, and the closest you are going to get to being able to get her choice. You, on the other hand, want to artificially continue the pregnancy despite the evidence showing that she would not have wanted that. Despite what you may claim, you are in this instance acting against choice. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/146 "2014-01-25T14:11:16Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > I don’t know what **Little Nemo** is on about, and frankly his posts are a little disturbing. I’m saying a lot of people here are missing the legal significance of what happened here. They’re cheering for the decision because they don’t realize the pro-life movement just out-manuevered them. As somebody who is pro-choice, I’m trying to wake other pro-choice people up to what happened. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/147 "2014-01-25T15:13:02Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’m saying a lot of people here are missing the legal significance of what happened here. They’re cheering for the decision because they don’t realize the pro-life movement just out-manuevered them. As somebody who is pro-choice, I’m trying to wake other pro-choice people up to what happened. That’s the exact opposite of what’s happened. The foetus is being allowed to die, by the choice of the person best placed to make that choice, instead of the law insisting it lives. That is _exactly_ what pro-choice has always been about. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/148 "2014-01-25T18:26:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’m saying a lot of people here are missing the legal significance of what happened here. They’re cheering for the decision because they don’t realize the pro-life movement just out-manuevered them. As somebody who is pro-choice, I’m trying to wake other pro-choice people up to what happened. So what do you think should happen? They should continue sustaining a dead body _just in case_ she didn’t want an abortion? Because that’s what she is: DEAD. (In fact, correct me if I’m wrong, but they wouldn’t even be performing an abortion, would they? They’d just be allowing nature to take its course – the fetus would die along with its mother) ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/149 "2014-01-25T19:21:14Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > So what do you think should happen? They should continue sustaining a dead body _just in case_ she didn’t want an abortion? Because that’s what she is: DEAD. If I’m reading it right, the argument is that although the end result is good for pro-choice people, the political/legal chicanery surrounding the case helps the pro-life cause. That’s some convoluted reasoning, if so. Me, I think people actually matter, so I can’t divorce the idea of sustaining a corpse to carry a brain damaged and possibly fatally compromised fetus with some bizarre political agenda that I can’t even communicate adequately to other people Not that I always agree with **Little Nemo** but I’ve never tagged him as unreasonable. I guess this is just one of those blind spot issues we all get worked up about from time to time. ---
**Author:** ![bobkitty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c67d28/32.png) [@bobkitty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobkitty)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/150 "2014-01-25T19:27:26Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > (In fact, correct me if I’m wrong, but they wouldn’t even be performing an abortion, would they? They’d just be allowing nature to take its course – the fetus would die along with its mother) You’re not wrong; it’s not like they’re going to put her in stirrups and go in there for a full-on abortion. They’ll simply shut the machines off, and it’ll all be over. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/151 "2014-01-25T19:28:37Z")
Thinking more on it, I guess the argument _could_ be that any decision that takes the _explicit_ choice from the woman is anti-choice. Of course, that makes no sense (as previously noted, that simply _implicitly_ gives the choice to the state to make on her behalf). Forcing the woman to explicitly make a choice takes that choice away from her when unexpected events happen - as we’ve repeatedly said in this thread. It makes a sort of twisted logic, I guess. But that’s me being nice. It’s actually **fucking insanely stupid** and **needlessly cruel** in cases like this. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/152 "2014-01-25T19:47:33Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Thinking more on it, I guess the argument _could_ be that any decision that takes the _explicit_ choice from the woman is anti-choice. Of course, that makes no sense (as previously noted, that simply _implicitly_ gives the choice to the state to make on her behalf). Forcing the woman to explicitly make a choice takes that choice away from her when unexpected events happen - as we’ve repeatedly said in this thread. > > It makes a sort of twisted logic, I guess. But that’s me being nice. It’s actually **fucking insanely stupid** and **needlessly cruel** in cases like this. Nobody took that choice away from here though in this particular case – it was nature that did it. So others are forced to do so in her place, since she’s incapable of doing so. It IS cruel and stupid – but so is life. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/153 "2014-01-25T20:10:45Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’m saying a lot of people here are missing the legal significance of what happened here. They’re cheering for the decision because they don’t realize the pro-life movement just out-manuevered them. As somebody who is pro-choice, I’m trying to wake other pro-choice people up to what happened. I’m with the others here: I can’t figure out how you see it that way. The woman made her choice, when alive: she got married, and thus agreed (tacitly, if not explicitly) to allow her husband to make important decisions in the case she was incapable of it herself. She “wants” what he wants. He’s making the decisions he knows she would have wanted. Nobody else in the world is better situated to make those decisions. The hospital tried to get between him and her. That was bad, and undermined her actual choice. The judge said no: the hospital can’t contradict what the husband says. That’s good: it restores the woman’s closest possible representation of her choices. For those of us who aren’t married, it’s a reminder to have our own paperwork in order, assigning this power to someone we trust. Make sure now that your choices will be heard, in case the time comes that you can’t express them. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_Fire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Silver\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_Fire)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/154 "2014-01-26T01:09:28Z")
I have a question. What’s her death cert going to say? Did she die a couple months ago or will she die on Monday? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/155 "2014-01-26T02:29:36Z")
I think, if I may parse Nemo’s argument for a second, that his contention is that since the hospital didn’t automatically remove her from life support upon death, that the interference between that decision and the eventual decision to remove her from the machines gives support to the overall circus being a boon for pro-life people, even if the eventual result is what pro-choice people want. They got their precedent to interfere, even if temporary, and its a crack in the wall that they will work to widen Going by that logic, the fact that the decision was interfered with for this long is bad for pro-choice, because it infers that it can happen again. However the situation ends, pro-life people can point to the fact that it took a judge to order the hospital to remove the woman from life-support, and next time they will point to it again and in that situation maybe the woman’s not going to be brain dead, maybe she’ll only be in a coma. And the pro-life people will say “Look, the last judge said she was dead but this woman’s alive and in a coma, you (the judge) gets to decide what will happen to her unborn baby because even though her husband said they were going to get an abortion an hour after she had her accident, its just hearsay, you can order otherwise”. And if they get a sympathetic judge, maybe then the woman is forced to have her baby The whole case seems to create the precedent that, if you are a woman, pregnant, and unable to communicate your wishes in a hospital, then the default position will be that the hospital will do everything possible to make sure you give birth. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/156 "2014-01-26T04:10:41Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Going by that logic, the fact that the decision was interfered with for this long is bad for pro-choice, because it infers that it can happen again. But that is just telling us what it is happening when they do a move that even the lawmakers are telling us that it should \*\*not \*\*had happened. **We know that already**. The moves made now by the judge and the family are telling us that future liability and even more condemnation will go to the hospitals and groups that attempt to do this stunt again in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/157 "2014-01-26T05:41:05Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > If I’m reading it right, the argument is that although the end result is good for pro-choice people, the political/legal chicanery surrounding the case helps the pro-life cause. > > That’s some convoluted reasoning, if so. Me, I think people actually matter, so I can’t divorce the idea of sustaining a corpse to carry a brain damaged and possibly fatally compromised fetus with some bizarre political agenda that I can’t even communicate adequately to other people > > Not that I always agree with **Little Nemo** but I’ve never tagged him as unreasonable. I guess this is just one of those blind spot issues we all get worked up about from time to time. The way I see it is this. The established law has been that only the mother can decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. But now we have a new precedent that says that the mother _and in some cases the father_ can decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Now you may argue that this was an extreme case and I’d agree. But now that the precedent has been made, anti-abortion people will try to find more cases where they can apply it. This case basically reopens the Danforth and Casey decisions. And we do not have a current court that I want re-examining abortion rights. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/158 "2014-01-26T06:02:21Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The way I see it is this. The established law has been that only the mother can decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. But now we have a new precedent that says that the mother _and in some cases the father_ can decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Not what is happening here, and even the ones that made the law agree. [http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/23/5509944/texas-law-didnt-anticipate-dead.html#my-headlines-default?rh=1](http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/23/5509944/texas-law-didnt-anticipate-dead.html#my-headlines-default?rh=1) > [@](#): > > An attorney who helped rewrite the state law being used to keep a pregnant Haltom City woman on life support said lawmakers never discussed it being applied to a brain-dead person. > > Thomas Mayo, an associate law professor at Southern Methodist University who helped draft the latest version of the advance directive section of the Texas Health and Safety Code in 1999, said that he does not recall discussing that aspect of the law. In reality the precedent the makers of the law are afraid of is that if the case is pressed to the State Supreme court a possible outcome is that the law that they made that “allowed” (and even this was not supposed to take place) this stunt possible could be declared unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/159 "2014-01-26T06:33:37Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The way I see it is this. The established law has been that only the mother can decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. But now we have a new precedent that says that the mother _and in some cases the father_ can decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. . . . But we (on the pro-choice side) want that. We want the husband to be able to make decisions for the wife, when she’s unable to choose for herself. Ideally, she will have written instructions that carry legal weight, but in the pinch, we want husbands to be able to make legally binding decisions of this nature – because we don’t want hospitals, legislatures, courts, or churches to make those decisions! ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837/160 "2014-01-26T06:37:05Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The way I see it is this. The established law has been that only the mother can decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. But now we have a new precedent that says that the mother _and in some cases the father_ can decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. When the mother is _incapable of making that decision for herself_. What do you want them to do – hold a seance? Even leaving her on life support and continuing the pregnancy is STILL making a choice for her – pro-choice does NOT equal pro-abortion! And there WILL NOT BE AN ABORTION, anyways. They’re not going to terminate the pregnancy in itself, but let the fetus die along with the mother. Jesus, how thick are you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-law-wont-allow-pregnant-woman-to-be-taken-off-life-support/677837.md?page=9)