Revealing the Disturbing Reality of Abortion Legislation: Insights from a Texan Activist
Kate Cox's heartbreaking ordeal in Texas sheds light on the true motivations behind abortion laws – revealing a system more focused on punishment than protecting life in the womb A powerful reminder of the chilling reality, as penned by Mary Ziegler
A woman and her husband made a remarkable request in a Harris County, Texas court this week: They asked a judge for an emergency order allowing her to terminate her pregnancy.
Mary Zeigler
Bill Lax/FSU Photography Service
Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two, has been diagnosed with carrying a child with full trisomy 18, a rare genetic condition with a high fatality rate. Her doctors have cautioned that continuing the pregnancy could pose life-threatening risks to her. Cox, who desires to have a third child, also faces the possibility of losing her ability to do so if she is forced to carry the pregnancy to full term.
On Thursday, the judge approved Cox's request, but the state is expected to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which has nine Republican members. Despite the uncertain outcome, Cox's lawsuit is expected to greatly impact the ongoing abortion debate, particularly due to its historical significance.
Cox represents a new wave of plaintiffs who are bravely sharing their painful experiences with restrictive laws in states such as Texas, Idaho, Tennessee, and Oklahoma. These individuals are speaking out at a time when public support for abortion is at a record high, as indicated by a WSJ-NORC poll, and the stigma surrounding abortion appears to be lessening. Despite the widespread support for abortion rights and the tragic situations faced by women like Cox, why are states like Texas vigorously defending their narrow exceptions?
The reality is that cases like Cox's highlight the impracticality of abortion exceptions under existing laws in states with near-total bans, particularly when accompanied by severe penalties such as life imprisonment. Admitting that a woman like Cox is justified could potentially unravel much of the framework of criminal abortion laws.
Allie Phillips is running for the Tennessee House of Representatives.
From Allie Phillips for HD75/Facebook
The impact of the Dobbs effect extends beyond voters, it is also influencing the emergence of political candidates. Cox's lawsuit is a rarity, especially considering the pre-Roe v. Wade era when abortion laws were constitutionally questioned by both patients and doctors. In some instances, pregnant patients were even the named plaintiffs in lawsuits, such as Norma McCorvey, known as "Roe" in Roe v. Wade, and Sandra Cano, the plaintiff in the companion case Doe v. Bolton. While these legal battles often determined the legality of the law, they did not necessarily change the outcome for the pregnant plaintiff. Following Roe, minors sought court-ordered abortions without parental consent or notification through "judicial bypass" laws, often while maintaining anonymity.
Cox's situation is unique - unlike McCorvey and Cano, she is an adult and has not hidden her identity. Her willingness to share her story is a testament to her strength, but it's also influenced by the current political climate. Polls show significant support for legal abortion, even in states with abortion bans in place. The backlash to these bans and the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision has empowered more women to speak out about their experiences with criminal laws and take legal action. Cox and others like Amanda Zurawski, who are challenging abortion restrictions, are using their real names, knowing that the majority of Americans support legal abortion, particularly in cases like theirs.
The South Carolina Supreme Court building in Columbia, S.C. is depicted in this file photo dated Jan. 18, 2023. South Carolina's recently appointed all-male Supreme Court made a U-turn on the issue of abortion on Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2023, backing a prohibition on the majority of such procedures after approximately six weeks of pregnancy. (AP Photo/James Pollard, File)
James Pollard/AP
Opinion: The oxymoron at the heart of GOP abortion compromise
When states oppose plaintiffs like Cox and Zurawski in court, it only adds to the challenges faced by Republicans defending their stance on abortion. It becomes all too easy to criticize bans as cruel and extreme when the state lacks compassion for women at risk of losing their ability to conceive, their health, or even their lives.
Cases like Cox's highlight the difficulty of implementing a practical abortion exception. While in theory, a functional exception could serve the state's interest in protecting fetal life while providing a genuine option for individuals in extraordinary circumstances deemed deserving by the state. However, if a state imposes severe penalties, such as Texas authorizing life imprisonment for abortion, few doctors would be willing to take the risk of interpreting the law correctly, even if an exception is clearly defined.
Many exceptions are unclear, often written by lawmakers using the language of criminal law rather than physicians. Some states have multiple exceptions in their criminal abortion laws, such as Oklahoma. The broader and more compassionate an exception, the greater the chance that plaintiffs like Cox will prevail, but that requires a focus on patients and physicians that anti-abortion states reject. Exceptions often do not cover all tragic circumstances. While Texas has a medical emergency exception, it does not include fatal fetal abnormality, which deprives Cox of having a third child. The state dismisses this as being no different than what other women experience daily. Andy Beshear, the Democratic governor of Kentucky, made a similar issue a central message of his successful reelection campaign.
Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to stay updated on the latest news and developments from our Republican lawmakers, who are navigating the complexities of the abortion debate with a focus on compassion for women, particularly in challenging situations like Coxs.
Sign up for CNN Opinions newsletter
Join us on Twitter and Facebook
The situation in Texas complicates the narrative of valuing fetal life and women's health. Texas claims to value fetal life and women's health, but denies the unborn rights when it benefits them legally. Texas argues for compassion towards women, yet only allows doctors to intervene when their lives or major bodily functions are at immediate risk. Texas also claims to protect life, but forces women to carry non-viable fetuses, jeopardizing their ability to have a child in the future.
This highlights the true priorities behind state abortion laws: not the value of life in the womb, but rather criminal punishment and creating exceptions that are rarely, if ever, utilized. Coxs lawsuit is significant not just for its historical implications, but also for what it reveals about the state's priorities. When forced to choose between protecting women like Cox and criminalizing abortion providers, states like Texas consistently choose the latter.
