This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact The Epoch Times Reprints.
Texas’s Supreme Court has officially reversed a lower court’s ruling allowing a woman to obtain an emergency abortion under the state’s “medical emergency” exception.
Kate Cox, a 31-year-old Texan woman, sued the state last week for the right to have an abortion at 20 weeks because her unborn baby was diagnosed with Trisomy 18, a condition that causes multiple structural abnormalities and is usually fatal to the baby before birth or within the first year of life, according to MedlinePlus.
In her lawsuit, filed on her behalf by the Center for Reproductive Rights, several doctors also told Ms. Cox that continuing to carry the pregnancy to term could threaten her health and future fertility.
A lower-court judge initially granted Ms. Cox’s request for access to an emergency abortion; however, the state Supreme Court paused the ruling on Dec. 9, only a day later. The Texas Supreme Court has since overturned the verdict entirely.
According to the Dec. 11 ruling, Justice Jimmy Blacklock and Justice John Devine wrote that while the plaintiff makes a case that her doctor, Dr. Damla Karsan, believes she qualifies for a medical exception. “But when she sued seeking a court’s pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a ‘life-threatening physical condition’ or that, in Dr. Karsan’s reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires,” the Justices wrote.
“No one disputes that Ms. Cox’s pregnancy has been extremely complicated,” they continued. But they ultimately decided in their ruling, “Difficulties in pregnancy, even serious ones, do not pose the heightened risks to the mother [that] the exception encompasses.”
Texas’s strict abortion access laws prohibit and criminalize abortions except in cases of “medical emergency,” defined as when reasonable medical judgment finds that a “pregnant female ... has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”
Some doctors and other critics of the law argue the exceptions are too vague and force them to wait until their patients get sick enough to intervene.
Pro-choice advocates argue for legal access to abortion services, including elective abortion, especially in cases where the mother’s health could be at risk by continuing with the pregnancy. In contrast, pro-life groups argue on moral and religious grounds that life is sacred and that the unborn should also be extended protection by law.
Cox Leaves Texas
Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, revealed that before the Texas ruling and after a “week of legal whiplash and threats of prosecution from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton,” Ms. Cox has left the state.
After the lower-court order in Ms. Cox’s favor, Mr. Paxton threatened legal action against any doctors who performed an abortion, stating that the initial ruling would not “insulate you, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws.” According to Mr. Paxton, breaking the abortion ban law could include first-degree felony prosecutions and civil penalties of not less than $100,000 for each violation.
“This past week of legal limbo has been hellish for Kate; her health is on the line,” Ms. Northup said.
“She’s been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn’t wait any longer. This is why judges and politicians should not be making healthcare decisions for pregnant people, they are not doctors. ”
According to Ms. Northup, the whole affair is the result of the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade last year, which gave states the right to determine their own laws for regulating abortions. She argues that now, “women are forced to beg for urgent healthcare in court,” and the exceptions in place “don’t work.”
The Texas Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Zurawski v. the State of Texas, a different case filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of 20 women who were denied abortions in Texas while experiencing what were described as severe and dangerous pregnancy complications.
(L–R) Justice Rebeca Aizpuru Huddle, Justice Brett Busby, Justice Debra Lehrmann, Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Justice Jeff Boyd, Justice Jimmy Blacklock, Justice Jane Bland, and Justice Evan A. Young, of the Texas Supreme Court, arrive to hear litigators make their arguments in Zurowski v. State of Texas, at the Texas Supreme Court in Austin, Texas, on Nov. 28, 2023. Suzanne Cordeiro/AFP via Getty Images
In this case, they asked the Court for clarity on the meaning of the medical exception in the state’s abortion bans. According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, Ms. Cox’s “situation underscores the need for that clarity.”
The Epoch Times sought further comment from Ms. Cox. The Center for Reproductive Rights has said she is unavailable for media interviews at this time.
