Adamah said: (although it must've been in the back of the judge's mind, with the prospect of the State cast in the role of Dr. Frankenstein, morbidly experimenting with cadaviers to save a malformed fetus, against the will of their next-of-kin).
“I respect JPS’ arguments in trying to follow the law,” the judge said, “but every section doesn’t apply to someone who is dead.”
Judges are human beings too, so lots of things were likely floating around in his head. However, his LEGAL conclusion couldn't be more clear: EVERY section of the law doesn't apply to pregnant, dead women
If he thought it mattered legally, he would have mentioned viability, thereby leaving open the possibility of a hospital doing the same as JPS with a Munoz-type woman with a viable fetus.
Both sides also agree that the fetus is not viable, and the judge noted that the mother could elect to have an abortion if she were able to make such a decision.
“As I understand the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that if this fetus were not viable [and] Ms. Muñoz were alive … she could abort the child.”
The above, at least to me, indicates he was merely ensuring that the statute was not allowing something that is disallowed by U.S. Supreme Court law. For example, the statute couldn't be used by a father to let a late-term, viable fetus die because late-term abortion is banned (wth narrow exceptions). State statutes cannot conflict with pre-empting SCOTUS law.
