Arizona court says fetuses can't ride shotgun
As it turns out, a fetus is legally not a separate person. At least not in the carpool lane.
Sgt. Dave Norton stopped [Candace] Dickinson's car Nov. 8. When asked how many people were in the car, Dickinson said two, pointing to "her obvious pregnancy," the officer said.Norton said Dickinson's theory "would require officers to carry guns, radios and pregnancy testers, and I don't think we want to go there."
The municipal judge applied a "common sense" definition in which an individual is someone who occupies a "separate and distinct" space.
Now if only the federal government agreed with that assessment...
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Arizona court says fetuses can't ride shotgun.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/1578
Anyone care to take bets on who was paying this woman's legal bills?
Also, the whole point of the HOV lane is to reduce traffic and air pollution by getting folks to carpool. Last time I checked, a fetus didn't have the choice of driving its own car or carpooling with that woman whose womb it's occupying.
That sounds sensible for carpooling. But does it generalise well? ("an individual is someone who occupies a "separate and distinct" space"). If a man beats up his pregnant partner and causes her to miscarry, then on that principle he would evade a manslaughter charge, wouldn't he?
Oh, I just read the White House link. Bush politics aside, wouldn't it be an odd result if there were *no* sanction for killing a *wanted* fetus? I'm not sure whether UK and US law are different, or if the age of the fetus is taken into account.
The law can (and does, in some areas) heighten sanctions for violence against pregnant women.
There was a case like this in New Jersey about 10 years ago. The woman in Arizona needs a new excuse.