Conservative Hypocrisy At Work: Woman Being Kept Alive by State of Texas Has Deformed Fetus, Lawyer Says

munozI’m a little shocked this story hasn’t gotten more attention because it’s extremely disturbing.

On November 26 of last year, Erick Munoz found his pregnant wife, Marlise, collapsed on their living room floor.  Since then she’s been declared brain dead, a condition that if she ever experienced she had told her husband she did not want to be kept on life support.  Unfortunately, they had not signed the proper paperwork declaring her wishes.

At the time of her collapse, she was 14 weeks pregnant.

Well, Texas law states “you cannot withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment for a pregnant patient.”

So even though the woman’s parents and husband want her taken off of life support – the State of Texas won’t allow it.

Tell me again about that “small government conservatism?”

Well, even more disturbing details have emerged as the lawyer for the family has come out and said doctors have informed them that the fetus has several major issues, with him calling the fetus “distinctly abnormal.”

According to comments released by the lawyers for the family, the lower extremities are distinctly deformed to such an extent that the sex of the fetus cannot even be determined, there have been abnormalities in the heartbeat and it’s apparently suffering from hydrocephalus which is excess fluid in the brain.

Being that no one can determine how long the fetus went without oxygen after Ms. Munoz collapsed, extreme complications really aren’t that shocking.  Especially when you consider this fetus was probably deprived from oxygen for quite a while and is now being kept “alive” inside its mothers dead body by machines.

It’s horrific.

It’s that “small government” here in Texas at work.  But isn’t this a great example of how conservatives view women?  Her parents want her taken off life support, her husband wants her taken off life support and by all accounts she didn’t want to be kept alive on machines.  But she was pregnant, therefore she’s nothing more than an incubation machine for the fetus.  A fetus that by all accounts is disfigured and extremely abnormal.

The husband has filed an emergency motion with the court against John Peter Smith Hospital that he hopes will allow him to remove his wife from the machines artificially keeping her alive.

I can’t even imagine what this family must be going through.  Just thinking about it makes me sick to my stomach.  The nerve for conservatives to actually refer to themselves as the party for “small government” is an absolute joke.  Liberals support the rights of this family and her husband to decide for themselves what to do with their brain dead daughter and wife.  Yet conservatives want the government to decide for them because she happened to have been pregnant at the time of her death.

I just hope that the family finally gets what they’ve been wanting for months, to be able to properly bury their daughter and move on from this horrible nightmare the “small government conservatives” running the state of Texas have put them through.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Heather Robertson Barbour

    There is no “right” answer in this situation. The decision-makers have to try to determine the “least bad” choice. That said, it should be the family, not the government, who should be making that choice. My sympathies for everyone involved.

    • Galley_Queen

      Of course there is a right answer and that answer lays in the hands of the family and doctors.

    • P`tar

      Yes, there is. When a person is unable to speak for themselves regarding medical procedures and has left no written instructions such as a PoA for health care or a living will, there is a distinct legal precedence for who can make decisions for them. First, the spouse, if one exists. Next, the parents and/or children (if of age). Afterwards the extended family. The State has no business interfering in this family.

  • tina rowling

    but this is what they call pro-life, isn’t it? right? disgusting.

    • Sandy Greer

      Pro-Life right up until birth. After that, you’re on your own. Party of NO continually rants about ‘moochers’ and ‘takers’ on Food Stamps & Unemployment wanting Healthcare.
      So, Pro-Life…right up until that life BREATHES life.

      • HatethisAuthor

        You got it backwards. Statistics show that conservatives give a far higher percentage of their income to charity. Look it up yourself. Conservatives are the givers, Liberals are the takers.

      • Michael Siever

        1. Those conservative “charities” you speak of are already wealthy, such as the CATO Institute, upper echelon private universities, mega churches, SuperPACs, etc., as opposed to feeding the poor, lesser state universities, public good, grassroots organizations, etc.
        2. The only reason conservatives donate to these so-called “charities” is for tax-deduction purposes. The more income you donate to charity, the less you pay in taxes. They’re doing this as a “F*** you” to the IRS as opposed to genuinely being invested in helping the poor.

      • HateThisAuthor

        Oh I guess liberals just love to pay taxes then since they don’t give to charity. Well conservatives volunteer more than liberals and also donate more blood. I guess we have tax breaks for giving blood too? Face it, this dirty liberal Sandy has tried to portray conservatives as mean and uncaring, when the facts are spitting back in her face.

      • Bob

        Did you read the many critiques regarding poor study design and statistical manipulation in Arthur Brook’s 2006 book, or do you just like copying and pasting factoids from the internet?

      • MoeMoney

        Getting factoids from the net? People shouldn’t throw stones in glass houses.

      • Catherine Kuehl

        Hey Author, I give to my church–which I attend regularly–AND don’t whine about paying taxes! Did I just blow your mind?

      • Kyle Walker

        Any proof to back up said claims and generic statements?

      • Calie

        Agreed Michael…

        You will NEVER see a conservative down at a soup kitchen,,, or anywhere they would “have” to mingle with the homeless or poor.

        Liberals donate to donate, conservatives donate to get tax breaks.

      • Sandy Greer

        Food Stamps/Unemployment/Healthcare are NOT ‘charity’.

        That’s where YOU’VE got it wrong, LOL

        Those who equate Food Stamps/Unemployment/Healthcare as ‘charity’ see a world of ‘moochers’ and ‘takers’. No matter HOW much you give to ‘charity’ and WHY.

        And then you wonder why you can’t get a vote. The Ordinary Joe out there knows who likes him…and who sees him as just another ‘moocher/taker’.

        Why you have to work so hard at Voter Suppression, doncha know. ;D

      • People have been working all their lives and need assistance until they get back on their feet. They’ve paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes to this government. So what if they get some food stamps for a year or two? You act like its money coming out of YOUR pocket! It’s hardly entitlement nor is it mooching. It’s people who paid for this for others in need who are now in need themselves. The mentality of some people is so ridiculously unrealistic it is astonishing.

    • Spit_In_Tinas_Face

      Oh yeah, like this one singles case represents the views of all conservatives and pro-lifers. You’re disgusting Tina. Come here, I want to spit in your face till you’re soaked in my mucus.

      • Michael Siever

        Lol. And now you’ve just created yet another user name to attack another poster. You’re not fooling anybody, Spit_In_Tinas_Face, aka HatethisAuthor. Get a life.

      • SpitInMichaelsFace

        I’m not attacking Tina, I’m defending pro-lifers. This dirty Wh0re started the war. As a guest, it is making me retype the name every time I post, and typing the same thing gets boring. If Tina or you can’t take the heat, you can get out of the kitchen.

      • Bullybeater

        You are super gross and are clearly a misogynist.

      • MoeMoney

        Whats gross is when people blame large groups of people based on one isolated issue, just as Tina is doing, and the author of the article.
        And I have nothing against women. My girlfriend begs for my C0ck all the time. She would never tolerate a guy who insults women (unless they deserve to be).

      • Michael Siever

        Does your mom know you’re a pedophile?

      • MoeMoney

        Haha, haven’t seen that kind of joke since like third grade. Tell me another.

      • Michael Siever

        You! You’re not Sylvia! You’re one of the Kung-Fu Creatures on the Rampage…2!

      • tina rowling

        you made a username just for me, i’m honored. bless your heart.

  • deannemdm

    I bet they hospital will charge the family for all the “extra” days she is there too.

    • No, its the state of Texas that is picking up the costs. They wanted the woman alive. She’s more a medical experiment at this stage than anything else. They want to see if dead women can be used to incubate children for their vile pervert pedophile tendencies. In which case there would be a slew of these types of situations because there would be a benefit to using dead women’s carcasses to breed babies.

  • Jim Bean

    A tragic situation, indeed. However, according to Philly dot com, 12 other states have the same law. Its seems a bit deceitful and unsubstantiated to single out Texas and/or small government as the proper recipient of the blame, does it not?

    • Pipercat

      Not when your based out of Dallas and this story is all over the news down here…

      • Jim Bean

        That may explain it but it certainly doesn’t vindicate it.

      • Pipercat

        Vindicate what? That this is big news down here in Texas; where we have one party rule that cynically calls for small un-intrusive government? Here’s some advice: speak to what you know, not to what you assume is happening beyond your vicinity.

      • Jim Bean

        It doesn’t vindicate maliciously exploiting this tragedy for the purpose falsely portraying it as something peculiar to Texas or to small government. How long have you been trying to change this law and what avenues have you pursued so far? And if you haven’t been trying, doesn’t that make this mess all your fault?

      • Pipercat

        Viciously exploiting, please. Spare us the crocodile tears and feigned outrage. At not point does this piece assert that this is peculiar to Texas. That’s something you made up. The rest is a projected false dilemma. The only vindication going on here is your fallacy bolstering my assertion of politics being local; moreover, your knowledge of current Texas State politics are lacking to say the least. Your trying to make another mountain out of meteor crater on moon in another galaxy.

    • Sandy Greer

      If other states put a family thru this, I would like to hear about it. Until then, I would like to hear what Texas is doing. It’s not ‘singling out’ Texas if Texas is the only case.
      We don’t squash the news because it’s the only case of its kind. Do we?

      • Jim Bean

        You wrote that ten hours ago. By now you know that an (idiot) Texas court gave the go ahead to pull the plug. The hospital obeyed the law just like it should have and the court made a sensible ruling just like it should have. Idiot Texas caused no harm and neither did small government conservatives.

  • Michael Siever

    If the State of Texas is this determined to keep a brain-dead pregnant woman on life support, even though the fetus more than likely has defects and brain damage, not to mention it will more than likely stillborn, then the State should put its money where its mouth is and agree to pay the hospital bills for forcing the woman’s family to keep her on life support against their will and her wishes, since she clearly expressed that she did not want to be resuscitated in such a situation. This is what you get when you have a bunch of lawyers and businessmen practicing medicine on behalf of the State…

  • sherry06053

    I wonder if the fetus is in pain. Haven’t pro-life advocates used that as one of their talking points? That the fetus feels pain after so many weeks? How can it not be in pain? Take the mom off life support and let nature do what it’s going to do.

  • guest

    Republicans want a government that’s just small enough to fit in your underwear.

  • Sue Jerome-Daly

    That this family’s tragedy has been turned into a prolonged horror show is just sad. I cannot imagine the burden this ordeal must be in the whole family.

    That being said, who is paying the bill for the extended “care”?

  • HatethisAuthor

    The author deserves my spit in his eye for trying to pretend that this unusual case is somehow representative of conservatives and pro-lifers everywhere. I happen to be pro-choice myself, but only a subhuman takes a dirty cheapshot like this author is doing. Its a pity he wasn’t dismembered himself, when he was a fetus. OMG, the conservatives are trying to save a life – Oh, the horror!

    • Michael Siever

      Did you just create your account for this article, or do you just follow people on the internet you don’t like and bash them over everything they write?

      • Pipercat

        Neither, it’s just another greyed-out Disqus troll doing a hit and run.

      • HateThisAuthor

        Ah, so its my first time here and you happen to disagree with what I have to say, so you just dismiss me as a troll. Nice tactic for those that cant give a counterargument.

      • Pipercat

        I merely pointed out how your avatar keeps turning blue, then grey and is also changing names. If it walks like a troll, talks like a troll then shits like one…

      • HateYouToo

        As a guest, it is making me type the name every time I post, and sometimes I switch things up. Hardly a reason to dismiss what someone has to say.

      • Pipercat

        I have no intention of stepping in your troll scat. I may wear galoshes, but I watch wear I step. If you had any stones, you’d register and make something resembling a non-fallacious argument.

      • MoeMoney

        I already did register a while back, didn’t realize I could sign in with “Discuss”. And my argument is already non-fallacious: This special case in no way represents the views of the majority of pro-lifers or conservatives, and the author is despicable for taking cheap shots at the whole group.

      • Pipercat

        Your argument is fallacious because it is a straw man. This is not an abortion issue, but an issue regarding intrusive government. There are several paradoxes present here in Texas that validate the author’s assertion. If you read closely, there is no mention of reproductive rights. Only the legal issue regarding state powers in the application of life support.

      • MoeMoney

        Oh, and all conservatives hold the same view on the application of life support. Yeah, that’s right… I’m sure this case represents the views of every single one of them.

        “But isn’t this a great example of how conservatives view women?”
        Yeah, that’s real fair, I’m sure this isolated legal technicality in Texas is a fair way to infer about how all conservatives view women. (Especially considering that many many women Are conservatives and many many conservatives are women.)
        There is no getting around it – the author is taking dirty cheap shots, and the liberals should shut him up for doing so. He’s making you guys look worse than you already are.

      • Pipercat

        Another straw man. The State of Texas has given itself the omnipotent power of life and death in Texas. I live here and know quite well how it goes about its business. Regardless of the author’s hyperbole, the question remains whether or not the state has this ultimate power. This case is indeed, unique; however, it may just lay the ground work for a potent legal challenge. What’s ironic, they might be able to base it on 10th amendment grounds. The rest of your response is nothing more than an opinion; just like the author’s. If it troubles you, then don’t read it.

      • MoeMoney

        The State of Texas does not represent the views of conservatives. Say what you want about Texas, but the author’s hyberbole is inexcusable, and that’s why I retaliate with my own. I don’t shy away from things that trouble me. I make inflammatory comments – the same type that people have been saying about conservatives.

      • Pipercat

        You’re still missing the entire point of the piece and are dwelling on an irrelevant outrage of your own making. This is about the State of Texas, its governing officials, the laws they create and the ramifications of such. Period.

      • MoeMoney

        No, if this was confined to a complaint against Texas law, then that would be fine, but the author uses the chance to take unfair attacks on all conservatives. Read the article again and tell me he didn’t make some despicable cheat shots.

      • Pipercat

        Boo hoo, that’s why it’s called hyperbole. The thesis is sound. You’re being hypocritical when you denounce hyperbolic statements of others by creating hyperbolic statements of your own. That’s circular reasoning.

      • MoeMoney

        No, it isn’t circular reasoning, it is letting the punishment fit the crime. You pointed the finger at my hyperbole while excusing the hyperbole of the author. Therefore you are guilty along with him.

      • Pipercat

        Fucking go read what I said above…

      • StillHateThisAuthor

        Just for this article, thanks for asking.

  • Sandy Greer

    Gotta say, after reading thru the comments here:

    I’m suspicious of ANYBODY makes up names to post. Calls him/herself a ‘hater’. Especially when they call names the same time they tell us ‘their’ side are the Good Guys.

    But go ahead. ‘Haters’ speaking for the GOP. Gotta love it. Do what you do best. We’ll see you on Election Day, 2014. And again, in 2016.

    • Pipercat

      Scroll down, I semi-unmasked him/her…

      • MoeMoney

        I’m a him, thank you.

      • Pipercat

        See how I don’t assume?

      • MoeMoney

        “it’s just another greyed-out Disqus troll doing a hit and run.”
        We’ll see about that.

      • Pipercat

        That’s called contextomy, a false attribution fallacy. Your choice of names is what made you out to be a troll. Moreover, as I stated, you didn’t come clean till I called you out.

      • MoeMoney

        You could have also used to context to predict that I was male, and females don’t tend to rant in the way I do. Calling someone a troll is basically just another dirty name-calling tactic. “Oh, this guy strongly disagrees with my position, I think I’ll call him a troll to reduce his credibility.” If I’m a troll, the author is one also for writing in the way he did. And I didn’t “come clean” about anything. I was never hiding anything. I was replying as a guest until I remembered that I registered months ago.

      • Pipercat

        Now you are just making things up, as well as, making excuses. I’m sorry but using a moniker that spits in the face of another commenter to whom you disagree is vitriolic. Hence, a troll. You’re being totally hypocritical and necessarily defensive.

      • MoeMoney

        The article itself is vitriolic. I was only replying as the author deserved. If I made broad statements about all liberals based on such a narrow and specific case, the liberals would reply back just as I did. I’m quite sure that you don’t scold fellow liberals when they reply with fiery wrath. Do you reign in the anger of other liberals when they are in excessive rage? If not, then it is You who is the hypocrite.

      • Pipercat

        Um, one minor problem besides all the fallacies, it wasn’t about all conservatives, it was aimed at small government conservatives. You have a real problem with minor details like context.

      • MoeMoney

        No, the author didn’t qualify his statements with “small gov conservatives only”. He was clearly intending the attack to target ALL of them. You’re insane if you believe the context was small government conservatives only. Most conservatives do want small government, but it doesn’t negate the possibly of government having control of a certain policy. Cheap shots everywhere. The author clearly implied that all conservatives are to blame because of this backwards legal dilemma.

        “But isn’t this a great example of how conservatives view women?”

      • Pipercat

        Well for the second time with emphasis, boo fucking hoo. You’re far to myopic to see the context of things so you quote mine. All of your arguments are totally fallacious, you can’t see the context within a sentence, paragraph and an entire essay. Now you have the gall to tell me how to interpret this piece because you know better than me. Bullshit, I live in Texas. I am far more informed as to the shit that spews out of Austin than you could possibly imagine. Yet, some know-it-all like you comes in here, talking shit and plays the projection/conflation/morphing game when you get called out. You’ve been dancing around like Saint Vitus and your novelty is wearing thin.

      • MoeMoney

        It doesn’t matter that you live in Texas. This isn’t about Texas, its about attacking all conservatives without cause. I know the context full well. The context is: I’m going to write a hate piece against all conservatives based on this little issue going on in Texas. If you can’t see that the author’s intention was to blast ALL conservatives, then you are brainwashed beyond hope. How many qualifiers do you see in the article, excusing other conservatives from blame? Not One! No context is needed. In plain text the author slams conservatives again and again. Look at silly you, thinking you know better because your home happens to be in Texas. That’s cute. Well I live in Florida, and Zimmerman was innocent.

      • Pipercat

        No context is needed… Brilliant! Do you need a hanky? That whole response is a false equivalency, by the way.

      • MoeMoney

        Lets see, many many slams against conservatives – not one of them with a qualifier changing the context. The context is clear – the author hates conservatives and makes unfair attacks on them.

      • Pipercat

        You’re assuming I give a shit about this little tantrum of yours. Keep it up junior, you’ll wear out sooner or later.

      • MoeMoney

        Lol, ah, so people who disagree with you are having a “tantrum”. Very clever use of the word “junior”. Insulting enough to try to get a rise out of me, but not too insulting to make it appear that you are having a tantrum of your own. Good word choice, although I’m hardly a junior anymore. And clearly you DO give a shit or else you wouldn’t be here. 😀 So now you have the choice of staying, and proving that you still give a shit, or leaving, and making the appearing that you never gave a shit in the first place.

      • Pipercat

        Argumentum ad lapidum and an admission of defeat.

      • MoeMoney

        Resortus to Latinus to makem oneselfus appearist smarterus.
        Did I dismiss any of your arguments? Why don’t you go look at your first posts to me LOLOLOL.

      • Pipercat

        Reductio ad absudum and an admission of defeat.

      • MoeMoney

        You admit defeat? Well that’s nice, but I never knew there was a contest in the first place. My goal was simply to express that the author made ridiculously unjustified claims about conservatives based only on a small incident. Your admission of defeat really isn’t necessary. Just agreeing that the author made use of vitriolic hyberbole is fine. And agreeing to reprimand other liberals for their double standards would be nice too. But if there was a contest, I think the troll would have won. LOL.

      • Pipercat

        Argumentum ad lapidum and an admission of defeat.

      • MoeMoney

        Well I have to go for now, so I’ll accept your admission of defeat. Take care for now. No hard feelings.

    • MoeMoney

      I don’t speak for the GOP. Just because I call a person a dirty liberal doesn’t mean I’m republican. I only made up names because I was a guest at the time, and was required to. This place is already infested with 99% liberals. It doesn’t matter what I say – nobody is going to be changing their voting over the contents of this forum anyway.
      And you, implying that conservatives don’t care about a person after birth – you are the master of hateful statements. Go tell that to all the conservative people in your life – that they have no concern for life after birth.

      • Sandy Greer

        Oh, you speak for the GOP, all right. You don’t represent them in the ‘best’ light, but you speak for Conservatives, loud and clear:

        You come on here, call yourself a ‘hater’ who ‘spits’ on people (when you’re not calling them names, of course)

        True, nobody is going to vote based on what is said here. But there’s PLENTY more of ‘you’ out there:

        1) We see you on TV
        2) Hear you on Talk Radio
        3) Read you in newspapers

        We know ‘who’ you are, and we take THAT into the voting booth with us, LOL

        You want to convince us you don’t ‘hate’ the Average Joe? Stop ‘begrudging’ Food Stamps; extend Unemployment. And for GOD’S sake…stop wasting time trying to repeal/defund the ACA. Spend some of that time on ‘helping’ folks, instead. SHOW them you’re not a ‘hater’, ’cause talk is cheap!

        Or…just do what you do, better than anybody else, LOL Either way, works for me.

      • Catherine Kuehl

        Well, a few of them do, and they actually walk the talk. But there a a good number of them who are pro-fetus and don’t give a rodent’s bottom about the women carrying said fetuses. Sorry if that fact galls you.

  • kbf

    This is horrible. I would change the headline and text in one way–one report I heard with a doctor being interviewed said she is NOT ALIVE. Brain dead is dead. Her physical body is being artificially maintain, but she is gone. I am so sorry. Condolences to this grieving family. And may the lunatics who are making them all suffer get what’s coming to them.

  • Jstactzn

    …to abrogate the love the mother had for the unborn child, to abrogate an event that would have them both together for eternity is not a decision any mortal should EVER be allowed to “play God” in. The state of TX is blasphemous in this entire scenario.

  • Jstactzn

    Disqus…you would do well to moderate these posts. The faux-regiosity is really ugly and conforms to NO ones sense of decorum OR sane discourse.

    • Pipercat

      The authors do from time to time. It’s actually up to the site owners.

    • MoeMoney

      Oh, so widespread attacks on conservatives everywhere, based on an unusual legal technicality in Texas is considered “sane discourse”.
      I think that by “moderate these posts”, you mean, “kick out anyone with strong views against us.”

  • fafhrd

    Wow! Just, wow.
    A few times in the article “small government” is addressed, in quotes even in the article! Claiming that this Texas law is the result of “small government” conservatives. This application of that law is definitely NOT “small government”. This is a case of big government deciding for you what is best, outside of the wishes of the people directly involved.

    This isn’t a case of “small government conservatism”. This author is making the case for smaller government even with his maltreatment of this tragedy for this family.

  • Michael Siever

    In case nobody has heard the news, the judge has ordered that Marlise Munoz’s body be taken off of life support by Monday at 5 p.m.

  • Gabriel Gentile

    You think any of these righties are gonna lift a finger to provide for the special needs that child shall require if carried to term?

    SHORT ANSWER: No.

    LONG ANSWER: Hell no!

  • Quebarbera!

    Hmm… Sure you don’t mean “small-minded government”?

  • Voice of reason

    This is standard procedure in multiple states. I know that here in Ohio, unless the victim/patient has a DNR (do not resuscitate) order on them or with a family member, or even in general, then the medical professionals HAVE to do what they can to keep that person from passing. This is because the flip-side option is to let them DIE without being able to confirm that that is what anybody (especially the parents, children, or patient themselves) wanted. If the patient recovers after the accident, and then raises a stink about how they didn’t want their life to be an abomination to Santa Claus or whoever or that they just didn’t want all of those medical bills, then, from the state/hospital viewpoint, at least they don’t have a family suing them for not saving (killing) a person that they had the power to save.

    This isn’t “big government” coming into our lives, this isn’t anti-abortion; this is the state and hospital trying to cover their own ass from terrible law suits over two lives because most people can’t get their paperwork in order.

  • Calie

    I’ve heard a judge has given the hospital till Monday to take her off life support before further legal action will be taken against them.