Texas Judge Grants Legal Abortion to Pregnant Woman in Lawsuit against the State
A Texas judge ruled a pregnant woman's right to choose, granting her permission to terminate her pregnancy due to a fatal genetic condition The decision came after her gynecologist warned of potential health risks and future fertility concerns 20 women and 2 physicians stood in solidarity, fighting against the state in separate lawsuits
A Texas judge's ruling on Thursday allows a pregnant woman to legally terminate her pregnancy after suing the state for a court-ordered abortion. This decision is a major milestone in the debate surrounding the state's medical exception to its highly debated ban on abortions after six weeks, which is one of the most stringent in the country.
Kate Cox, 20 weeks pregnant, has filed a lawsuit this week seeking a temporary block of the state's abortion ban in an Austin state district court. She has been unable to undergo the procedure due to concerns of breaking the law. Cox's baby has been diagnosed with trisomy 18 and is not expected to live more than a few days outside the womb, according to the lawsuit.
Following the ruling, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton cautioned Cox's physician that civil and criminal penalties could still be imposed should she carry out the court-ordered procedure.
The lawsuit filed by Cox is thought to be one of the first instances in the country of an individual seeking a court-ordered abortion following the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade, as reported by the New York Times. Cox, aged 31, has visited three different emergency rooms in the past month due to severe cramping and unexplained fluid leaks, as stated in her lawsuit. Having undergone two previous cesarean surgeries, the continuation of the pregnancy poses a high risk of severe complications that could jeopardize her life and future fertility, including uterine rupture and hysterectomy.
During an urgent hearing on Thursday, a judge approved a temporary restraining order against the state, allowing Cox to proceed with an abortion without delay.
"The fact that Mrs. Cox is eager to become a parent, and this law could potentially prevent her from doing so is alarming and would be a true injustice," stated Judge Maya Guerra Gamble. "Therefore, I will be authorizing the order to be processed and sent out today."
Cox and her husband attended the emotional Zoom hearing, visibly wiping away tears at the judge's decision. Molly Duane, Cox's attorney, is working to quickly secure her abortion care while maintaining the safety and privacy of her client, her family, and her physician.
Duane stated that the fight is not yet finished as the ruling only pertains to Cox and does not "reinstate access" to abortion for countless other women. She criticized the state's argument as "extremely callous," and accused them of not caring whether people live or die as long as they are compelled to give birth.
Marc Hearron, a lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights, also commented: "This cannot become the new standard. It is unrealistic to expect that hundreds of cases will now be filed on behalf of patients."
Paxton's letter threatening legal action alleges that Cox has not shown evidence of a "life-threatening" medical condition related to her pregnancy, nor demonstrated that her symptoms pose a risk of death or major bodily harm. The letter was sent to three Houston hospitals where Cox's physician has privileges, as reported by the Texas Medical Board. It was made public by Paxton's office, and CNN has contacted the hospitals for their response.
The state attorney general cautioned hospitals that the recent ruling will not protect them or anyone else from facing civil and criminal consequences, including potential first-degree felony charges and civil penalties of at least $100,000 per violation. Additionally, the ruling does not prohibit private citizens from pursuing civil action, in reference to Senate Bill 8, a controversial Texas law that permits individuals to sue those involved in performing or facilitating an abortion.
Group of 20 women and 2 physicians fight state in separate lawsuits
In Texas, a lawyer contended on Thursday that Cox's pregnancy symptoms did not meet the state's criteria for a medical emergency warranting an abortion.
According to Johnathan Stone, a special counsel at the state attorney general's office, Cox's doctor determined that she qualified for an abortion based on "subjective" rather than "objective" criteria outlined in the law.
The debate on whether medical reasons for an abortion should be subjective or objective is at the heart of the ongoing legal battles over the state's exception rule. Critics argue that the rule is ambiguous and causes doctors to hesitate in performing abortions due to the potential felony charge they could face. Meanwhile, the state argues that the language in the law is clear and sufficient.
Duane contended that the state was questioning the judgment of her clients' doctors and asserting that Cox was not sufficiently ill. Duane is employed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is currently engaged in a separate legal dispute with the state in order to gain clarity on the state's medical emergency exception.
"They have changed the criteria once more. Now, a patient must be on the verge of death before a doctor can invoke the exception," she stated, criticizing the state's position as "cruel and risky."
CNN has contacted the state attorney general's office for a comment.
Trisomy 18, also known as Edwards syndrome, is a chromosomal disorder that can lead to heart defects and other organ abnormalities. Approximately half of the cases result in fetal death. Many children born with this condition do not survive beyond a few days, and over 90% do not live past a year.
The state's attorneys contended that Cox's condition, as outlined in the court documents, did not meet the state's medical exception criteria. They argued that granting the temporary restraining order would essentially constitute a change in the law. Cox's gynecologist, Dr. Damla Karsan, previously stated that she believed in good faith that Cox qualified for the legal exception to the abortion ban. However, she was unable to proceed without a court order due to the potential ramifications for her medical license, legal consequences, and significant civil fines if her assessment was not upheld by the courts.
The state permits abortions after six weeks in the case of a "medical emergency," defined as a life-threatening physical condition arising from pregnancy that endangers a woman's life or could result in serious impairment of a major bodily function without an abortion, as certified by a physician.
This year, a group of 20 women and two physicians have challenged the state in a separate lawsuit over the medical exception, contending that the language in the law is ambiguous and prevents doctors from performing abortions in critical cases due to the lack of clarity.
The attorney from the state attorney general's office argued before the Texas Supreme Court that the law regarding abortions for women with life-threatening medical issues is clear. He stated that if such women are not receiving abortions, it should be considered negligence on the part of the doctors. Cox expressed her concerns that the law is too vague to determine the legality of an abortion in cases of severe cramping, despite her multiple visits to the emergency room for this issue.
Cox expressed her decision to end the pregnancy, stating that she did not want to prolong the pain and suffering. She also emphasized that she did not want to put her body at risk by continuing the pregnancy. The statement was released by the Center for Reproductive Rights, the organization that filed the lawsuit in Travis County. In an op-ed for the Dallas Morning News, Cox revealed that her unborn baby girl was diagnosed with full Trisomy 18.
"I am striving to make the best decisions for the well-being of my baby daughter, myself, and my family, but the laws in Texas are causing us to endure unnecessary suffering," Cox penned. "I cannot bear the thought of bringing my baby into a world where she will only experience pain and hardship."
"I must terminate my pregnancy now in order to prioritize my health, my ability to parent my children, and my prospects for future pregnancies," she added.
