Can a trans man get an abortion in Texas where a woman can&#39;t? Texas has an anti-abortion law, Health and Safety Code 245 which states: the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant. The term does not include birth control devices or oral contraceptives. An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to: (A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child; (B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or (C) remove an ectopic pregnancy. (emphasis added). It explicitly references a woman who is known to be pregnant. Can a trans man therefore get an abortion in Texas by reason that he is not within the definition of 'woman' as it would be understood in this statute?
Ever changing ordinary definitions do not change what the law makers meant The cited piece of law dates back to 1989. At that time, it was virtually inconceivable that &quot;woman&quot; could ordinarily mean anything other than a biological female person potentially capable of becoming pregnant and giving birth. Times change, so do ordinary definitions. But these do not automatically make their way into the laws that were written before the change occurred. he is not within the definition of 'woman' as it would be understood in this statute? So, the definition as it will be applied is the one from 1989.
There is no parallelism between the Texas decision and the proposed lawsuit. In the anti-mifepristone lawsuit, there exists a statute granting the FDA authority to regulate and review new drugs, and a petition procedure whereby citizens can state ground for the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to consider a regulatory action. There is no statutory basis on which a ban of meat-eating could be created by executive action. Congress cannot be sued for not passing a law (failure or refusal of Congress to pass a particular law is not justiciable). If, for example someone were to submit a petition to the FDA urging such a regulation, the petition would have to be denied because the FDA does not have statutory authority to issue such a regulation. As argued here, the anti-mifepristone plaintiffs lack standing in that case, so one can expect that to be a substantial issue in the subsequent appeal.
Murder Which is the unlawful taking of a life with intent to do so. However, the doctrine of self-defence can make killing lawful: A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large. if the prosecutor is of the opinion that the force used "is reasonable in the circumstances" they may not lay charges. If they do lay charges the judge may decide that there is no case to answer before going to trial if self-defence applies. If there is a trial this will probably be the strategy the defence employs and they may or may not be successful. If convicted the penalty is life imprisonment. Also, there is no UK law: there is the law of England and Wales, the law of Scotland and the law of Northern Ireland.
In the US, only a few states allow conjugal visits by prisoners: California, Connecticut, New York and Washington. Details of implementation for Washington are here (it is called "Extended Family Visiting"). There are various limitations, for example you can't have committed homocide within the last 5 years, you can't be on death row, and so on. Although they don't explicitly say you can have sex, you can, and they have (a small sample of) contraceptive and STD-preventing technology for prisoners to avail themselves of. If you fail to take advantage of contraceptives, then yes it is possible. There is no provision pertaining specifically to mass murder.
In Texas, as in most of the US, the law is "Employment at Will". This means that an employer is free to fire people at any time, for any reason, or none, as long as it is not for one of the few reason forbidden by law, such as racial or age discrimination. Hourly employees are entitled to overtime pay in such cases, but "exempt" employees are not. Nor are they entitled to comp-time as a matter of law, that is at the option of the employer. (The question seems to imply that the employee in question was "exempt" but does not actually say so.) The only really effective recourse against that sort of "death march" is to quit and find a better job, or to threaten to do so while they still need you, unless the conditions return to acceptable ones. I have heard of people in such a situation who "get sick" every day at 5:30pm, because local law forbid requiring ill employees to work. But that is pretty much inviting an arduous and possibly expensive administrative and/or legal battle, and will depend on the specifics of the state/local law. In any case, it is too late for the person in question to try that. On the facts as stated, there might be a valid claim of age discrimination. But additional facts would be needed to establish this, and it would be in my view unwise to try it without consulting a good employment lawyer. Such a lawyer could advise exactly what must be proved and how, and what the probable chances of any recovery would be.
This is interesting because things get extremely different on state and federal levels. Quoting this, Under modern U.S. law, suicide is no longer a crime. Some states, however, classify attempted suicide as a criminal act, but prosecutions are rare, especially when the offender is terminally ill. The &quot;some states&quot; part is much more important than was emphasized there, however. A case that reached the Virginia Supreme Court, Wackwitz v. Roy (referred to in Wikipedia) pivoted about the legality of suicide. From the decision: We are aware of only one legislative enactment that addresses suicide as a crime. Code § 55-4 provides that &quot;[n]o suicide ... shall work a corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.&quot; Thus, although the General Assembly has rescinded the punishment for suicide, it has not decriminalized the act. Suicide, therefore, remains a common law crime in Virginia as it does in a number of other common-law states. See, e.g., Southern Life &amp; Health Ins. Co. v. Wynn, 29 Ala.App. 207, 194 So. 421 (1940); Commonwealth v. Mink, 123 Mass. 422 (1877); State v. Willis, 255 N.C. 473, 121 S.E.2d 854 (1961); State v. Carney, 69 N.J.L. 478, 55 A. 44 (1903); State v. Levelle, 34 S.C. 120, 13 S.E. 319 (1891), overruled on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 406 S.E.2d 315 (S.C.1991). To constitute suicide at common law, however, a person who takes his own life &quot;must be of years of discretion, and in his *865 senses.&quot; 5 William Blackstone, Commentaries *189; accord Plunkett v. Supreme Conclave, 105 Va. 643, 646, 55 S.E. 9, 10 (1906) (&quot;`To constitute suicide at common law the person must be of years of discretion and of sound mind.'&quot;). This common law rule comports with a contemporary definition of suicide. Suicide is defined as &quot;the deliberate and intentional destruction of his own life by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind.&quot; Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2286 (1981). I believe that the &quot;only one legislative enactment&quot; refers merely to Virginia state law, not nation-wide law. Thus, in Virginia, and other states, suicide could be treated as a common-law crime. However, in United States v. Hudson, it was ruled that such common-law convictions are not allowed at the federal level. I'm not always a fan of Google Answers, but the last one here provides a fairly well-documented section on common-law rulings about suicide. Note that in many states, this is not enforced, as common-law rulings are increasingly rare.
If that person becomes incapacitated or is deemed unfit to make their own decisions, will I be required to be physically present (for example, to sign something) to make those decisions if called upon? While it is customary for someone making decisions as weighty as removal of life support, to come to the hospital or care facility in person and discuss the issues with treating physicians, it isn't required. When you are physically there it is easier for you to personally assess the patient's condition rather than just taking someone else's word for it, and you have more informal access to everything that is going on in terms of people coming in and out of the patient's room, providers you wouldn't have known to speak to initiating conversations with you (e.g. there is typically an ER nurse for each shift, several residents doing rounds checking on a patient, and often also an outside specialist doctor involved in the treatment team). It is also usually easy when you are physically in a hospital to locate someone knowledgable and familiar with the kinds of issues you are facing at the moment to provide spiritual and religious guidance if you feel this would help you make your decision, while your neighborhood clergy person may not have a good understanding of these issues since they don't come up as often for someone is doesn't frequently spend time around people being treated in hospitals or hospices. And, this kind of pastoral counseling requires not just religious knowledge but an understanding of the options that are being presented through the lens of what is religiously and morally important about the differences between the different options. When I was an attorney for a hospital handling these issues for the hospital, we would have been willing to work with an out of state medical power of attorney agent without their physical presence. But, the fact that this was deep in the Rocky Mountains far from other urban areas (i.e. Grand Junction, Colorado) may have influenced a willingness to be flexible since it would often take a lot of time and money for someone to arrive in person. Also, while the medical power of attorney gives a specific person authority to act, an advanced medical directive is simply a document that goes into a patient's medical record that advises treating providers of the patient's intent and doesn't actually need next of kin approval or a medical power of attorney agent's say so to implement, although better practice is to seek that consent first in case there are any reasons why that advanced medical directive might have been procured improperly from someone lacking capacity or subsequently revoked. There usually will be forms for a medical power of attorney agent to sign, not authorizing a particular medical procedure, but authorizing treatment in general and providing personal and financial information about the patient in connection with admitting that person. But, these days, hospitals are relatively comfortable with handling that paperwork via fax or scanned copies sent via email, and some of the more flexible hospitals will even accept photos of signed documents sent via text message.
The answer isn't clear, but Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in Dobbs suggests that such a prosecution would be unconstitutional: May a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause. Dobbs. v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 597 U. S. ____ (2022). Kavanaguh relied largely on the Supreme Court's decision in Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964). There, black protesters were charged for trespass because they staged a sit-in at a diner and refused to leave when police told them to. They argued they couldn't be convicted because the state's trespass statute only prohibited entering land after being told not to, but the courts convicted them anyway, holding that the statute also outlawed remaining on land after being asked to leave, even though the statute said nothing like that. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions, holding that &quot;an unforeseeable judicial enlargement of a criminal statute, applied retroactively, operates precisely like an ex post facto law, such as Art. I, § 10, of the Constitution forbids.&quot; By applying such a construction of the statute to affirm their convictions in this case, the State has punished them for conduct that was not criminal at the time they committed it, and hence has violated the requirement of the Due Process Clause that a criminal statute give fair warning of the conduct which it prohibits. Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 350 (1964). But Kavanaugh's opinion isn't controlling, and Bouie isn't exactly on point, so the question remains open. The defendant probably has the more straightforward argument -- the abortion was legal up until Dobbs was decided -- but there's a pretty good argument for the state, as well: When Roe was still good law, abortion law was quite fuzzy, so it was never entirely clear whether new restrictions on abortion were or were not unconstitutional. Given those conditions, the state laws outlawing abortions were clear enough to provide fair warining, even if there were legitimate questions as to the constitutionality of those laws; if a woman wanted to do something contrary to the law, she should have petitioned the courts to invalidate it, rather than simply breaking it. So there's no real way to say what the answer is at this point, but I suspect we'll get a real answer before too long.