The Texas Supreme Court ruled Monday that Kate Cox failed to qualify for a legal abortion.
The decision does not affect the pregnancy, however, and Cox decided earlier in the day to travel out of state to obtain a legal abortion. How her decision will affect the Texas legal case remains to be seen.
PATRIOT GAMES: HOW NEW ENGLAND’S DISASTROUS NFL SEASON IS CHANGING THE 2024 ELECTION
Cox, 31, sought an abortion in Texas after her fetus was given a near-fatal diagnosis that also risked harming her own health. A Texas judge granted Cox’s request for an abortion on Thursday, but the state Supreme Court blocked the request after a challenge from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Saturday.
In its ruling, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Cox’s doctor, Damla Karsan, didn’t assert that Cox’s pregnancy was “life-threatening,” only that it was complicated.
“When she sued seeking a court’s pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a ‘life-threatening physical condition’ or that, in Dr. Karsan’s reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires. No one disputes that Ms. Cox’s pregnancy has been extremely complicated,” the court ruled. “Any parents would be devastated to learn of their unborn child’s trisomy 18 diagnosis. Some difficulties in pregnancy, however, even serious ones, do not pose the heightened risks to the mother the exception encompasses.”
The ruling added that if her condition were to change and become truly life-threatening, Cox would be cleared to have a medical abortion if a doctor determined it a medical necessity.
“A pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a lifesaving abortion in Texas,” it said. “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. If Ms. Cox’s circumstances are, or have become, those that satisfy the statutory exception, no court order is needed. Nothing in this opinion prevents a physician from acting if, in that physician’s reasonable medical judgment, she determines that Ms. Cox has a ‘lifethreatening physical condition’ that places her ‘at risk of death’ or ‘poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced.'”
Cox is 20 weeks pregnant and her fetus has been diagnosed with trisomy 18. In an interview prior to the district judge’s ruling, Cox said she and her husband had planned to continue to grow their family and had never considered an abortion.
Trisomy 18 is when a person has three copies of chromosome 18 rather than two. It is the second most common trisomy syndrome after trisomy 21, which is Down syndrome.
About 1 in every 5,000 babies is born with trisomy 18, and only 5% survive past one year of life.
In the petition, Paxton asked the Texas Supreme Court to rule quickly to block the procedure.
“Nothing can restore the unborn child’s life that will be lost as a result,” the filing said. “Post hoc enforcement is no substitute, so time is of the essence.”
The Texas Supreme Court is also considering Zurawski v. State of Texas, in which 20 women are claiming that they were denied abortions they say were necessary due to complications during pregnancy.
Under state law, which abortion advocates say is unclear, healthcare providers can only induce an abortion to save the life or health of the mother.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The state contends in the Zurawski case that the plaintiffs have no standing because, unlike Cox, they are not currently seeking an abortion.
Cox’s case has been the first of a woman actively seeking an abortion since Roe v. Wade in 1972.
