AUSTIN, Texas (CN) — After lawyers representing a Texas woman, on Monday, said their client fled the state to get an abortion, the state’s highest civil court ruled that a lower court’s order authorizing her to get the procedure in Texas was improper.
In their unanimous decision, the nine-member, all-Republican, Texas Supreme Court held that doctors are not prohibited from providing abortions so long as it is to save the life and or bodily functions of the mother.
“A pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a lifesaving abortion in Texas,” the ruling read. “Our ruling today does not block a life-saving abortion in this very case if a physician determines that one is needed under the appropriate legal standard, using reasonable medical judgment.”
Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant, is a mother of two from Dallas, who sued the state of Texas last week seeking a court order allowing her to get an abortion after her baby was diagnosed with a fatal fetal condition called trisomy 18. Cox’s husband Justin and a doctor who was planning on performing the procedure, Damla Karsan, also joined in the lawsuit.
Despite warning from her doctors that continuing her pregnancy would place her life and future fertility at risk, Cox has been unable to terminate the pregnancy due to doctors refusing to perform the procedure, citing fears of prosecution under the state's abortion ban.
Under Texas law, any doctor who performs an abortion, except in some cases of medical necessity, faces up to 99 years in prison, a $100,000 fine and revocation of their medical license. On top of those steep penalties, private citizens are authorized to bring civil lawsuits against supposed violators, with the chance of being awarded a minimum of $10,000 per violation.
In her lawsuit, Cox said that she and her husband would like to try for more children in the future. The pregnancy has already caused her to go to the emergency room several times due to severe cramping, leaking fluids and elevated vital signs. Additionally, in her initial complaint, Cox said she did not want to “wait until her baby dies inside her or carry the pregnancy to term … only to watch her baby suffer until death.”
Last week, Travis County District Court Judge Maya Guerra Gamble granted the plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order days after the suit was filed. However, that relief was short-lived.
Hours after Gamble gave Cox 14 days to terminate the pregnancy, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sent a letter to three Houston-area hospitals where the procedure could have taken place and appealed the order.
In his letter, the fervent anti-abortion Republican threatened the hospitals and their staff with legal action.
"While the TRO purports to temporarily enjoin actions brought by the [state attorney general and Texas Medical Board] against Dr. Karsan and her staff, it does not enjoin actions brought by private citizens," Paxton wrote.
The next day, the Texas Supreme Court paused the temporary restraining order.
Without hearing oral arguments, the court axed the order entirely, finding that Gamble granted it with the opinion that Cox qualified for the medical exception. However, the court found that Gamble erred in her “opinion” because according to the statutes, so long as a physician, using their “reasonable medical judgment” determined Cox needed an abortion, she would have been able to receive one without fear of prosecution. Furthermore, the court found that Karsan failed to uphold that standard in her pleadings, making it so that, based on the pleadings alone, Cox did not qualify for the exception.
“Dr. Karsan asserted that she has a 'good faith belief' that Ms. Cox meets the exception’s requirements,” the court wrote Monday. “Certainly, a doctor cannot exercise 'reasonable medical judgment' if she does not hold her judgment in good faith.”
Follow @KirkReportsNews
