LOS ANGELES.–Texas resident Kate Cox, 31, was forced to go out-of-state for an abortion after the Texas Supreme Court ruled she didn’t meet the medical exception for performing an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected between eight and 12 weeks. When the Supreme Court overturned 1973 Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion in all states June 24, 2022, it threw the nation’s abortion law into utter chaos. States were given the authority to determine their own abortion laws, with Texas being one of the strictest, banning abortion at the detection of a fetal heartbeat. Cox begged the Texas Supreme court to allow her an abortion at her doctors urging because her fetus was diagnosed with Trisomy 18, a genetic defect causing profound abnormalities in heart-and-lung function, usually killing most newborns in 24 hours with others possibly surviving with heroic measures to one year.
For an eight-justice Supreme Court in Austin to rule Cox’s fetus did not meet Texas criteria for abortion shows why the U.S. Supreme Court turned back the clock on a civilized management of women’s reproductive health. More than the federal right to abortion, Roe v. Wad was about a woman’s reproductive rights to determine with her doctor or other counselors a decision to terminate pregnancy. Pro-life groups argue that abortion is tantamount to murder, depriving embryos and fetuses the right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Pro-choice groups argue that it’s not up to the government to interfere with a woman’s medical decision-making, whether the unborn fetus or baby is viable or not. When it comes to Cox, she carries a baby at 21 weeks with Trisomy 18, assuring that her baby will suffer with a fatal congenital birth defect.
Eight Texas Supreme Court Justices ruled that Cox’s request did not meet the “life of the mother” exception to the Texas abortion law, forcing Cox to go out of state. Cox presented medical evidence that she had been to the Emergency Room four times in two weeks due to cramping and other urgent medical symptoms. Cox went to U.S. District Court Judge Maya Guerra Gamble asking for a medical exception to Texas abortion law. When Gamble granted her the exception, Texas Attu. Ken Ken Paxton filed with the Supreme Court to stop her. Cox was treated alike a criminal under Texas law for seeking urgent medical attention for a diagnosable condition. Paxton said in a letter to Texas hospitals or clinics considered for performing an abortioin, they could face fines up to $100,000 or even jail time. Texas Supreme Court placed an immediate stay on Gamble’s order for the medically necessary abortion.
Ruling against Gamble’s District Court, the Texas Supreme Court made clear the reasons for the stay. “Dr. Karsan asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s condition poses the risks the exception encompasses,” said the Supreme Court. “Some difficulties in pregnancy, however, even serious ones, do not pose heightened risks risk to the mother the exception encompasses,” read the Supreme Court ruling. Paxton argued to the Supreme Court that Cox did not make the appropriate medical argument that her life was in danger, triggering the Texas exception involving the mother’s help. Texas law makes getting an abortion under the medical exception all but impossible. “In danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function,” reads the Texas law, making doctors’ jobs untenable.
No doctor trying to evaluate possible health risks of a pregnant patient have the medical powers to answer the Texas state medical exception law. Doctors cannot be expected to answer a a pro-life argument about hypothetical medical exceptions to the Texas abortion law. Anti-abortion bureaucrats in writing the Texas law made it impossible for doctors to practice medicine under the Texas Medical Board. Texas Medical Board has every right to argue in federal court that the Heartbeat abortion law prevents doctors from practicing under authority given by the State of medical doctors. When it comes to Cox, she has the resources to go out of state to get her abortion. But why should any Texas resident not have the medical privacy rights to determine what’s best in their condition without the Texas court system interfering with laws governing the practice of medicine?
Texas Heatbeat law doesn’t take into account that no doctor licensed under Texas law has the medical expertise or psychic power determine what constitutes as life-threatening situation. There are so-called normal pregnancies and deliveries that result in the death of newborn or their mothers during the unpredictable childbirth process. So, when Atty. Gen. Paxton and Supreme Court state that Cox’s doctor didn’t make the acceptable medical argument, it goes beyond legal or medical ethics. “While there are serious concerns with her baby’s health, there are also serious concerns with her own health and you cannot tease those apart—they are inextricably intertwined,” said Cox’s attorney Molly Duane. Duane touches on the impractical nature of letting unelected judges or state bureaucrats, without any education or training, engage in medical decision-making.
About the Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.
