There’s a growing conflict between states that recognize a fundamental right to make end-of-life decisions and those that override those wishes only when a person is pregnant.
As more courts recognize a patient’s privacy rights to make end-of-life health-care decisions, it’s become clear that what courts characterize as “fundamental rights” don’t apply to pregnant people.
Marlise Munoz’s family will finally be able to say goodbye to the 33-year-old, who collapsed in her home nearly nine weeks ago.
The Friday ruling came after Munoz’s family asked a court to let them bury her.
The husband of the 33-year-old pregnant Texas woman who collapsed in her home just before Thanksgiving has filed suit against the hospital that refuses to take her off life support, despite her stated wishes against such treatment.
The Supreme Court won’t take a look at Arizona’s 20-week abortion ban, but it will consider a bunch of free speech challenges to abortion rights protections.
Marlise Munoz’s family has plans to sue for the right to take her off life support, while legal counsel for the hospital includes a local Right to Life chapter’s advisory board member.
It is hard to imagine a more absolute denial of a woman’s personhood than depriving her of the right to decide her own future, and then literally using her body without permission as an object for a fetus to grow in. Yet this is exactly what the pregnancy exclusions envision in the 31 states that have passed them.
The family of a pregnant Texas woman who is on life support against her wishes say they want to educate the public about an advance directives law that has put them through “pure hell.”
A Texas hospital says it has no choice but to keep a pregnant woman on life support until the fetus she is carrying can be delivered, sometime next year.