The US Supreme Court is expected to decide the fate of abortion drugs
The case of Kate Cox vs. S.B. 8, a state abortion law that protects the public from malpractice under it: No comment by Duane
The group brought suit in Texas to say that the FDA approval process did not properly assess safety risks. An initial ruling from Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas sided with the plaintiffs, invalidating the FDA’s approval. (Kacsmaryk is a President Trump appointee known for his anti-abortion views.)
On the other hand, the government says that the drug has been deemed “safe and effective” since 2000. In its brief, the government says the FDA has “maintained that scientific judgment across five presidential administrations, while updating the drug’s approved conditions of use based on additional evidence and experience,” including the over five million patients who have taken it.
Cox left the state on Monday to get the procedure. A few hours later, the Texas Supreme Court ruled against her and sided with Paxton.
In court and in legal filings, Paxton’s office has repeatedly argued that women with life-threatening pregnancies who did not get appropriate care in Texas can and should sue their doctors for malpractice.
With three different laws governing abortion in Texas, confusion reigns. Texas has a law called the “heartbeat law”. In some states, abortion can be legal up until around six weeks into the fetus’ life. Texas has a law against all abortions from conception to birth. It’s different from a six-week-ban in early pregnancy.
“In the two years that these abortion bans have been in effect in Texas, the attorney general and officials for the state have remained eerily silent. They have refused to tell anyone what the exception means,” Duane says.
People who help women get abortions can also be held liable under one of those three laws, S.B. 8, which says anyone can sue a person for helping someone get an abortion. Someone who drives their spouse to an abortion in Texas can be sued by anyone anywhere. This is why Kate’s husband Justin Cox was also named in the petition – Duane says it was to protect him against this provision of S.B. 8.
The Texas Medical Board will not comment on pending litigation. NPR requested an interview from the office of Paxton, but they did not respond. They haven’t provided guidance to hospitals or doctors that have been public.
Yet, Duane points out, Cox was not “sick enough” in the Texas justices’ eyes. “That should be truly chilling because it means, I think, that the exception doesn’t exist at all.” Duane added, “My question is, if she doesn’t [qualify], who does?”
Cox didn’t want to travel, as she wrote in the Dallas Morning News last week. Why should I have to drive hundreds of miles just to find out what’s best for myself and my family?
Her lawyers and her doctor argued that her future fertility was at risk. Does it count as a “major bodily function”? Would Cox, her husband and her doctor be safe from enforcement of the serious penalties if she had the abortion? That’s what the Center for Reproductive Rights asked the court when it filed an emergency petition on Cox’s behalf, requesting the abortion bans’ penalties be suspended for Cox, her husband, and her doctor, so she could have a legal abortion in Texas.
Kate Cox, 31, lives in the Dallas area with her husband and two young kids. About 20 weeks into her third pregnancy, she learned her fetus has Trisomy 18, a genetic condition with slim to no chance of survival. She’d also suffered cramping and other symptoms, severe enough to send her to the emergency room multiple times in a two week period.
Telehealth for Medication Abortion Care Now Hangs in the Balance: Dana Northcraft, Co-founder of Reproductive Health Initiative for Telehealth Equity and Solutions
“The future of telehealth for medication abortion care now hangs in the balance,” says Dana Northcraft, the founding director of the Reproductive Health Initiative for Telehealth Equity and Solutions. “Telehealth for medication abortion is safe and effective and helps people overcome barriers to care, whether it be long travel distances or getting time off from work or school.”
A US court ruled that women with life-threatening pregnancies in Texas who don’t get appropriate care could sue their doctors for malpractice under a state abortion law. The law was passed to protect the public from malpractice under which anyone can be sued for helping someone get an abortion. The court also refused to intervene in a lawsuit by a woman who got an abortion.