Insights into the Struggle of a Texan Woman's Abortion Journey
A Texas woman's legal battle to terminate a high-risk pregnancy challenges the strictest abortion law, with potential ripple effects
In a highly publicized abortion case following the Roe V. Wade decision, a Texas woman is in a legal battle with the state to end her high-risk pregnancy. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications as it challenges Texas' stringent abortion laws. Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two, has filed a lawsuit to terminate a pregnancy that poses a threat to her life and future fertility. The case has sparked a contentious legal dispute, drawing national attention. Despite leaving the state to seek the procedure, the Texas Supreme Court ruled against her on Monday.
According to the New York Times, the lawsuit is considered to be one of the earliest efforts in the country for an individual to request a court-ordered abortion following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last year. The 1973 ruling by the US Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to abortion before fetal viability. Here's what we currently understand about Cox and what her case signifies regarding the status of abortion law in a post-Roe America.
Who is Kate Cox?
Coxs name came into the public sphere when she filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas on December 5, asking a court to declare she has the right to terminate her pregnancy.
Cox was 20 weeks pregnant when she sued. Her fetus had been diagnosed with a rare and deadly genetic condition called trisomy 18.
On June 23, 2022, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, a family physician and her resident conducted an ultrasound on a 39-year-old woman with four children, just a day before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. This took place at the Center for Reproductive Health clinic, where the woman later underwent a surgical abortion. The doctor will remain unnamed for security purposes. Due to neighboring states' ban on abortion, New Mexico is expected to see an increase in patients seeking reproductive health services. (Image credit: Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
"After Roe v. Wade, nearly 20% of individuals seeking an abortion had to travel to another state, according to analysis findings. In an op-ed for the Dallas Morning News, Cox shared her struggle with the restrictive laws in Texas, expressing her desire to do what is best for her baby daughter and family, and prevent her child from suffering."
"I need to terminate my pregnancy to ensure the best possible outcome for my health, my ability to parent my existing children, and for any future pregnancies," she stated.
Trisomy 18, also known as Edwards syndrome, is a uncommon chromosomal disorder that may result in heart defects and other abnormalities in organs. The Cleveland Clinic reports that nearly all pregnancies affected by Trisomy 18 end in miscarriage or stillbirth. For the babies that do survive to full term, the clinic states that no more than 10% survive past their first birthday.
Ms. Cox has visited three different emergency rooms in the past month, citing "severe cramping and unidentifiable fluid leaks." The lawsuit claims that due to her history of two previous cesarean surgeries, continuing the pregnancy poses a high risk to her life and future fertility. These risks include uterine rupture and the potential need for a hysterectomy.
What does Texas law say about abortion?
Discover the legal status of abortions across different regions - banned, legal, or in limbo.
Texas enacted a ban on abortions in 2021 following the detection of fetal cardiac activity, which typically occurs around six weeks into pregnancy. This effectively prohibits most abortions before many individuals even realize they are pregnant. In the subsequent summer, the Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights, triggering a law that practically prohibits all abortions except in cases where the mother's life is at risk or poses a serious threat of substantial impairment to a major bodily function.
Texas not only criminalizes abortions but also permits private citizens to bring a civil lawsuit against anyone who knowingly supports an abortion. The issue of what is required to safeguard the mother's life is a major point of dispute. Despite experiencing pain and medical issues during her pregnancy, Cox has expressed concern that the law is too unclear in determining the legality of an abortion in her situation.
The lawsuit alleges that Ms. Coxs physicians have told her that they are unable to take any action, leaving her with the grim options of waiting for her baby to pass away in utero or carrying the pregnancy to full term. At that point, she would be compelled to undergo a third C-section, knowing that her baby would suffer until the end.
How did the courts respond?
The district court judge granted Cox permission to terminate her pregnancy, issuing an emergency ruling with a temporary restraining order against the state. Judge Maya Guerra Gamble emphasized that Cox's desire to become a parent should not be hindered by the law, calling it a potential miscarriage of justice.
After the ruling, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a warning to Cox's physician, indicating that civil and criminal penalties could still be pursued if Cox undergoes the procedure. These penalties may include first-degree felony prosecutions and civil penalties of at least $100,000 for each violation. Paxton petitioned for immediate intervention from the state's supreme court, arguing that Cox did not sufficiently demonstrate that her pregnancy posed a threat to her life.
People march together to protest the Supreme Court's decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health case on June 24, 2022 in Miami, Florida.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Uncertainty looms in the South as limited abortion access is under threat. The Texas Supreme Court temporarily blocked Cox from receiving the procedure on December 8. On Monday, the court, made up of nine Republican justices, issued a ruling and opinion in favor of Paxton, reversing the lower courts ruling.
The court also urged the state's medical board to offer clearer guidance on the medical emergency exception that is central to Cox's case. In its opinion, the court emphasized that the decision to provide an abortion should rest with the doctors, not with the judges. The court also noted that Cox's doctor had failed to demonstrate that her symptoms posed a life-threatening situation.
The court stated that in Texas, a pregnant woman does not require a court order to have a lifesaving abortion. Instead, a physician must use reasonable medical judgment to determine if it is necessary under the appropriate legal standard. Coxs attorney, Molly Duane, expressed disappointment over the state Supreme Court's decision to overturn the lower court's ruling.
Duane told CNN Tuesday that the court system, political system, and infrastructure in Texas had already failed Kate and her family. She further stated that no one is taking responsibility for what is happening to her.
What happens next?
On Monday, Coxs attorneys with the Center for Reproductive Rights announced she had left the state to undergo an abortion.
The center has not revealed further details about her plans, but their statement mentioned that she has been offered assistance to access abortion in other locations, from Kansas to Colorado to Canada.
Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, stated in an earlier release, "This past week of legal uncertainty has been extremely difficult for Kate. Her health is at risk, and she has been in and out of the emergency room. She cannot afford to wait any longer. This is why judges and politicians should not be making healthcare decisions for pregnant individuals - they are not medical professionals."
When asked why Cox chose to file a lawsuit instead of seeking care in another state earlier Thursday, Duane, her attorney, responded, "For many people in need of abortion care, leaving their home communities for urgent health care is not an option. Traveling by plane during a medical emergency, especially during an obstetrical emergency, is a violation of human rights in itself."
It is unclear whether Cox plans to continue her legal battle following the Texas Supreme Court's latest ruling, according to her attorneys.
"Kate and her family have had a very difficult week," Duane shared with CNN on Tuesday. "The fact that she had to leave her own state for essential abortion care because her state has failed her so dramatically is truly devastating."
Who else is suing Texas?
Texas has been sued by others for the same medical exception that is the focal point of Cox's case. In March, a group consisting of five women and two medical providers filed a lawsuit against the state, contending that the abortion ban poses significant health risks, endangering their lives, health, and fertility. These women have requested the court to affirm that abortions may be carried out when a physician determines in "good faith" that the pregnant individual has a physically emergent medical condition that poses a risk of death or a risk to their health, including their fertility.
The case has now grown to include 15 additional women and contends that the language surrounding medical exceptions in the law is ambiguous, leading doctors to avoid performing abortions in critical situations. The lawsuit was also filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights.
During a recent hearing at the Texas Supreme Court, a representative from the state attorney general's office argued that the law was unambiguous and that failure to provide abortions to women with life-threatening medical conditions should be viewed as negligence on the part of the doctors.
Previous version of this article inaccurately portrayed legal action unrelated to Kate Cox's lawsuit against the Texas abortion law. The lawsuit, filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights in March, now includes twenty women and two medical providers as plaintiffs.
