Fox News this morning talked about a pregant woman fighting a citation for driving alone in the HOV lane. (Not Texas) Her argument is that there were two or more people in her car because her unborn child is a person. I did not catch what state. Sounds like that state must define in some code somewhere that a person includes an unborn child. Anyone else see it?
Sounds like the defense raising an unintended consequence of cross-referencing, or lack of, in different codes.
Posts: 145 | Location: Bryan/College Station | Registered: April 23, 2003
So issue her a citation for failing to properly restrain the "person" (clearly under the age of 6, or 5 or whatever the limit is in the jurisdiction) in a child safety seat, which most likely has a higher fine than the HOV lane violation. After all, she IS claiming that her unborn child is a "person".
Posts: 325 | Location: Texas, USA | Registered: November 16, 2004
I heard it too. She didn't have an answer to the question of whether she was intending to claim the unborn as a dependent on her taxes. Sounded a little puzzled but also like she was gonna give it some consideration. Stay tuned. I doubt it's over. This lady's getting waaay too much attention for it to die.
My case was argued before the 7th Court of Appeals on November 8, while oral arguments are not good indicators of a result, I thought they went well. I don't expect an opinion until after the first of the year but one in on the way nevertheless.
Posts: 27 | Location: Amarillo, Texas, USA | Registered: July 25, 2003
quote:Originally posted by Richard M: while oral arguments are not good indicators of a result, I thought they went well.
Funny, I've been telling people the same thing! You are right, however, that at least one way or another we'll get a ruling and can move on from there.
This case has been quite useful in my teaching -- a good example of how to analyze a statutory problem. First you identify the three elements (delivery, CS, child) of the statute, then show which ones are in dispute (1 and 3), and then argue the definitions. In class, I present how you think the 1st and 3rd are met, and how I disagree. The case really isn't all that complicated -- it's just the end results we disagree about. Anyways, my students have seemed to appreciate an infusion of the "real world" -- every now and again -- into classes, particularly criminal law. Now they keep bugging me about when there's going to be a decision, as if I had a clue.