The Texas Supreme Court on Monday reversed a lower court\u2019s ruling that would have allowed a woman to obtain an abortion under the state\u2019s \u201cmedical emergency\u201d exception, hours after the woman\u2019s attorneys said she had left the state to have the procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Kate Cox sought the abortion<\/u><\/a> after learning her fetus has a fatal condition and doctors told her she could risk her future fertility if she doesn\u2019t get the procedure. A state judge ruled last week that Cox, who is 21 weeks pregnant, could terminate her pregnancy \u2014 but the Texas Supreme Court temporarily put that ruling on hold late Friday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Cox, announced that the 31-year-old mother had left the state to get health care elsewhere, following what the group described as \u201ca week of legal whiplash.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then, hours later, the state\u2019s high court ruled against her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ruling calls into question whether this decision could deter women in similar situations from seeking a court-authorized abortion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The center did not disclose more details about Cox\u2019s plans, but its statement said Cox received \u201coffers to help her access abortion elsewhere, from Kansas to Colorado to Canada.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cox\u2019s attorney said she wants her care \u201cthe fastest way\u201d possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Thursday, a state district court judge sided with Cox and granted a temporary restraining order<\/u><\/a> against the state so she could legally have an abortion under the state\u2019s \u201cmedical emergency\u201d exception. Texas has a nearly complete abortion ban with narrow exceptions<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton quickly threatened criminal prosecution against doctors or hospitals who help facilitate the abortion, saying they could still face charges after the 14-day temporary restraining order expires.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Late Friday night, the high court temporarily blocked Cox from obtaining an abortion while it reviews the case and has not issued a decision since then.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A court filing over the weekend supports the Republican attorney general\u2019s petition for the Texas Supreme Court to intervene<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n CNN has reached out to Paxton\u2019s office for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis past week of legal limbo has been hellish for Kate,\u201d Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. \u201cHer health is on the line. She\u2019s been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn\u2019t wait any longer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis is why judges and politicians should not be making health care decisions for pregnant people\u2014they are not doctors.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cox\u2019s lawsuit is believed to be one of the first attempts in the country by an individual seeking a court-ordered abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade<\/u><\/a> last year, according to the New York Times<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \u201cmedical emergency\u201d exception\u2002<\/u><\/a>in Texas allows for an abortion if the mother has a \u201clife-threatening\u201d physical condition while pregnant or has \u201ca serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Critics argue the statute is too vague and has a chilling effect on doctors who fear criminal prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The same legal group representing Cox \u2013 the Center for Reproductive Rights \u2013 is also representing a group of women and physicians before the Texas Supreme Court in a lawsuit seeking clarity. The state argues the law is adequate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In its ruling late Monday, the Texas Supreme Court \u2013 comprised of nine Republicans \u2013 called on the state\u2019s medical board to provide more guidance on the \u201cmedical emergency\u201d exception that\u2019s at the heart of Cox\u2019s case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The high court also released an opinion, saying it should be up to doctors \u2013 not judges \u2013 to decide whether to provide an abortion. It said Cox\u2019s doctor did not establish or attest that Cox\u2019s symptoms were life-threatening.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNo one disputes that Ms. Cox\u2019s pregnancy has been extremely complicated. Any parents would be devastated to learn of their unborn (fatal condition) diagnosis. Some difficulties in pregnancy, however, even serious ones, do not pose the heightened risks to the mother the exception encompasses,\u201d the opinion states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe exception requires a doctor to decide whether Ms. Cox\u2019s difficulties pose such risks,\u201d the ruling continues. \u201c(A doctor) asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox\u2019s condition poses the risks the exception requires.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n A separate case is still pending before the Texas Supreme Court seeking clarity on the \u201cmedical emergency\u201d exception. Notably, in its opinion, the court called on the Texas Medical Board to provide further guidance on the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe courts cannot go further by entering into the medical-judgment arena. The Texas Medical Board, however, can do more to provide guidance in response to any confusion that currently prevails,\u201d the opinion states. \u201cEach of the three branches of government has a distinct role, and while the judiciary cannot compel executive branch entities to do their part, it is obvious that the legal process works more smoothly when they do.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cox\u2019s attorney said she has been to the emergency room four times in the last month due to symptoms like severe cramping, diarrhea, leaking of fluid and elevated vital signs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And because she\u2019s already delivered two children via C-section, her physicians have warned she is at high risk for complications, including possible uterine rupture in future pregnancies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to her attorneys, this pregnancy would need to be delivered via another C-section, which Cox fears could jeopardize her health and future fertility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, the fetus has Trisomy 18, sometimes called Edwards syndrome, which is a fatal genetic condition that can cause heart defects and other organ abnormalities. In <\/strong>at least 95% of cases, fetuses don\u2019t survive full term, so pregnancies can end in miscarriage or stillbirth, according to the Cleveland Clinic<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Paxton argued Cox has not established her symptoms as to meet the \u201clife-threatening\u201d criteria in the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The filing from his office stated Cox inquired about getting an abortion only after learning her fetus might not survive the pregnancy or long afterward and already knew she might need another C-section before her current pregnancy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cPlaintiffs plead no facts linking Ms. Cox\u2019s physical condition related to the birth of this child to the loss of fertility. Instead, it appears she will face the same risks regarding the birth of any future child,\u201d the filing states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As his office has done in the broader case on this issue before the state Supreme Court, Paxton\u2019s attorneys also argued \u201ca fatal fetal condition does not meet the medical exception,\u201d adding the exception applies only to the mother\u2019s condition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Paxton\u2019s office also said none of the physicians who have treated Cox, who live in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, have recommended an abortion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr. Damla Karsan, a Houston-based physician, a plaintiff in the other case, is cited in legal filings as having reviewed Cox\u2019s medical records, recommended the abortion, and agreed to provide the medical care.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state wrote in the filing Karsan\u2019s recommendation \u201cis not enough.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhat he\u2019s (Paxton) saying is that physicians in Texas shouldn\u2019t be practicing medicine.\u201d Duane said. \u201cKen Paxton is practicing medicine \u2013 because that\u2019s what he wants \u2013 he wants to review her medical records. He wants to decide if he thinks she\u2019s sick enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhen people tout the medical exceptions to abortion bans as meaning that the abortion bans are OK, and that people who really need care are still getting it, that\u2019s a lie.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case shows why \u201cit is completely untenable for patients to have to come to court and ask for court authorization for lifesaving medical care,\u201d she said. \u201cIt\u2019s simply outrageous and people should be outraged but what is happening in Texas right now.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\nCaught in a \u2018legal limbo\u2019<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The \u2018medical emergency\u2019 exception<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Texas Supreme Court rules<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Fears for woman\u2019s health and future fertility<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
State says doctor\u2019s opinion \u2018is not enough\u2019<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n