The Texas Supreme Court rules against a woman who travels outside the state to have an emergency abortion

Attorneys for the Center for Reproductive Rights stated on Monday that a Texas woman who had requested a valid medical exemption for an abortion has left the state after the Texas Supreme Court postponed a lower court ruling that would have permitted her to undergo the surgery.

The decision to end Kate Cox’s pregnancy was made last week by State District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble, a Dallas mother of two, age thirty-one. Court filings state that Cox’s doctors informed her that her child had trisomy 18, a chromosomal condition that typically causes a newborn to die at birth or have a stillbirth.

Cox was 20 weeks pregnant as of last week’s court filing. The Center for Reproductive Rights, the plaintiffs in the complaint, claims that Cox fled the state because she “couldn’t wait any longer” to get the surgery.

CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights Nancy Northup stated, “Her health is on the line.” “She’s been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn’t wait any longer.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton responded to Gamble’s decision by telling a Texas medical center that performing an abortion might result in legal ramifications.

Gamble’s decision was then momentarily put on hold by the Texas Supreme Court in an unsigned order late on Friday.

Following Cox’s departure from the state on Monday, the state Supreme Court lifted the pause, rejecting the case as moot, and reversed the decision of the lower court that had approved Cox’s request.

In its ruling, the state supreme court stated that Cox’s physician had the authority to decide whether Cox’s pregnancy threatened her life or a significant bodily function, which was the requirement for an exemption to the state’s abortion prohibition.

Despite the fact that Cox’s doctor did not claim to have a “good faith belief” regarding whether Cox’s situation qualified for an abortion under the law, the lower court nevertheless allowed her to get one.

“Judges do not have the authority to expand the statutory exception to reach abortions that do not fall within its text under the guise of interpreting it,” the Supreme Court wrote in its ruling.

Cox’s doctors had informed her, according to court documents, that an ultrasound and early screening indicated her pregnancy is “unlikely to end with a healthy baby,” and that since she had two cesarean sections in the past, she is at risk of “severe complications” that could endanger “her life and future fertility.”

Despite the fact that Cox’s doctor did not claim to have a “good faith belief” regarding whether Cox’s situation qualified for an abortion under the law, the lower court nevertheless allowed her to get one.

“Judges do not have the authority to expand the statutory exception to reach abortions that do not fall within its text under the guise of interpreting it,” the Supreme Court wrote in its ruling.

Cox’s doctors had informed her, according to court documents, that an ultrasound and early screening indicated her pregnancy is “unlikely to end with a healthy baby,” and that since she had two cesarean sections in the past, she is at risk of “severe complications” that could endanger “her life and future fertility.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights claims that Cox v. Texas is the first case to be filed on behalf of a pregnant person seeking emergency abortion care since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Eight weeks pregnant, a lady in Kentucky filed a lawsuit last week opposing the state’s two abortion prohibitions.

Comments are closed.