The Texas Supreme Court ruled on Monday against a pregnant woman, Kate Cox, who challenged the state’s stringent abortion restrictions. A lower court had initially authorized Cox’s abortion due to complications in her pregnancy, despite Texas’ controversial abortion ban. Nonetheless, the state Attorney General, Ken Paxton intervened, asking the Supreme Court to block the procedure.
In their ruling, Texas Supreme Court indicated that only a medical professional could exercise “reasonable medical judgement” and confirm whether a pregnant woman “has a life-threatening physical condition,” such that Texas law would permit the abortion. Therefore, the medical-necessity exception to Texas’ abortion laws must be decided by a physician, not by a court order.
In consonance with this, the court’s decision was more focused on the standard applied by the trial court to confirm whether Cox met the exception, instead of a verdict that Cox is not entitled to an abortion. Hence, nothing in their decision prevents a physician from acting if, based on the “reasonable medical judgment,” it is determined that Ms. Cox has a “life-threatening physical condition” that poses her “at risk of death” or “poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed.”
Cox’s pregnancy was diagnosed with full trisomy 18, which would likely result in a miscarriage before term. Even if the fetus did survive, its life span would likely be only minutes after birth. Cox’s court petition suggests that the continuation of her pregnancy would put her at risk of uterine rupture and hysterectomy, both of which threaten her life and future fertility.
Cox’s lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights announced that Cox had been obliged to leave Texas to safely procure an abortion just before the Supreme Court’s decision. The Center’s CEO, Nancy Northup, lambasted the situation for placing undue pressure on women’s healthcare decisions, stating that the dire situation for women like Cox could be deadly for those who could not leave the state.
Read the full article on JURIST.