A woman who sued the state for abortion traveled out of state for her procedure
Indictment of Cox in a Texas Birthright Abortion Proposed by the Attorney General’s Brief to the State Attorney General
She had been to the emergency room multiple times for severe pain and a leak of amniotic fluid. Cox was told by her doctor that she shouldn’t carry the baby to term, since it could jeopardize her future fertility. She, her husband and her doctor have sued the state to get permission to have an abortion in Texas. If the Texas abortion ban had workable medical exceptions, it’s hard to see how they wouldn’t apply to Cox. The Cox family and their doctor were attacked every step of the way by the state attorney general.
She had already been in the emergency room three times with cramping and other concerning symptoms, according to court documents. Her lawyer said she has gone to the emergency room at least one more time. Her doctors told her she was at risk of developing hypertension and diabetes. She had two prior C-sections so carrying the pregnancy to term could hurt her chances of having a third child, according to the brief.
Judge Gamble in her ruling said that Cox should be able to get the procedure to preserve her ability to have future children. Blocking her from having the abortion would be “a miscarriage of justice,” Gamble said.
The medical exception requires that a person meet a certain standard in order to be considered. Her petition to the court “fails to identify what ‘life-threatening’ medical condition that Ms. Cox purportedly has that is aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy, nor does it state with specificity how this unidentified condition places Ms. Cox at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced.”
There are currently three overlapping abortion bans in Texas. Abortion is illegal in the state from the moment pregnancy begins. Texas doctors can only provide abortions if a patient is in danger of death or serious risk of major bodily function, according to the law.
The Texas Attorney General’s Office Receives Abuse Laws as Bad as They See fit: a case study of Kate Cox
Doctors, hospitals and lawyers want clarity on what a serious bodily function means, but the Texas attorney general’s office has held that the language is clear.
The Center for Reproductive Rights has repeatedly asserted that the exception language is vague and confusing for doctors and hospitals charged with making these calls, which is why it petitioned the court on Cox’s behalf.
Pro-choice activists misconstrued abortion laws, causing doctors to refuse to treat women who qualified for exceptions. The anti-abortion Charlotte Lozier Institute reported that abortion advocates were spreading a “dangerous lie that lifesaving care is not allowed in these states, leading to provider confusion and poor outcomes for women.” The Catholic conservative Richard Doerflinger accused “pro-abortion groups” of spreading “false and exaggerated claims in order to ‘paralyze’ physicians and discredit the laws.”
The case in Texas shows how absurd this argument is. Late last month, Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two, learned that her latest, much-wanted pregnancy was doomed due to a severe genetic disorder. If the pregnancy continued, she was likely to have a stillbirth, and if she didn’t, the baby had virtually no chance of surviving long outside the womb.
The Texas state attorney general’s office has proposed indicting Kate Cox, who was told by her doctor that she should not carry the baby to term, since it could jeopardize her future fertility. Cox’s petition to the court “fails to identify what ‘life-threatening’ medical condition that Ms Cox purportedly has that is aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy”, the office said.