Why Kate Cox did not qualify for an exception to Texas abortion ban

THE EXCEPTION TO THE ABORTION BAN IN TEXAS IS WHEN A WOMAN’S LIFE IS AT RISK. SO WHY WAS KATE COX – NOW THE FACE OF POST-ROE CONTROVERSY – DENIED AN ABORTION BY THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT?

ACCORDING TO HER DOCTORS AND LAWSUIT AGAINST THE STATE SEEKING AN EMERGENCY ABORTION, HER LIFE WAS NOT IN DANGER. 

THE HIGH COURT EVEN RULING IF CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGED AND COX’S DOCTORS DETERMINED HER LIFE WAS AT RISK, THEN SHE COULD GET AN ABORTION, NO COURT ORDER NEEDED.

BUT AS LONG AS THE BABY HAD A HEARTBEAT AND COX’S LIFE WAS NOT IN DANGER, THEN THE PREGNANCY COULD NOT BE TERMINATED UNDER TEXAS LAW — WHICH IS WHY COX DECIDED TO TRAVEL TO ANOTHER STATE FOR THE PROCEDURE.

THE HIGH COURT’S RULING STATES COX’S DOCTOR –

“Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a ‘life-threatening physical condition.’ No one disputes that Ms. Cox’s pregnancy has been extremely complicated. Some difficulties in pregnancy, however, even serious ones, do not pose the heightened risks to the mother the exception encompasses.” 

THERE WERE OTHER OUTSIDE FACTORS THAT HAVE DRIVEN THIS STORY TO THE TOP OF THE NEWS CYCLE.

THE FETUS WAS DIAGNOSED WITH A LIFE-THREATENING GENETIC DISORDER.

COX’S LAWSUIT STATES –

“The diagnosis was confirmed: Their baby has full trisomy 18. Ms. Cox and her family were devastated. Ms. Cox’s physicians explained that some families with a trisomy 18 diagnosis choose to continue their pregnancies, while others choose abortion.” 

ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH, A BABY WITH THIS DIAGNOSIS HAS A 10 PERCENT CHANCE OF SURVIVING PAST THE AGE OF ONE.

COX’S BABY’S LIFE WAS AT RISK, BUT AS LONG AS THERE WAS A HEARTBEAT AND A CHANCE, TEXAS LAW DOES NOT FIND THIS REASON FOR AN ABORTION.

COX’S LAWSUIT STATES –

“Ms. Cox asked about termination. Ms. Cox was shocked when her physician told her that due to Texas’s abortion bans, as long as her baby had a heartbeat, she would not be able to obtain an abortion in Texas. All they could do was continue to monitor the baby for cardiac activity.”

WHILE THE PREGNANCY WAS FOUND TO BE NON LIFE-THREATENING, IT DID PRESENT A RISK TO FUTURE FERTILITY. THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN COX’S THIRD C SECTION, WHICH MAKES FUTURE PREGNANCIES MORE HIGH-RISK.

THE LAWSUIT STATED –

“She will receive either 1) a labor induction at term or earlier, if her baby’s heartbeat stops, or 2) a C-section at full term. Both are associated with significantly higher mortality and morbidity than abortion. A C-section is a major surgery that becomes riskier each time it is repeated.” 

ACCORDING TO THE SUIT, COX HAS GONE TO THE ER SEVERAL TIMES FOR CRAMPING AND FLUID LEAKS.

SHE HAS ELEVATED GLUCOSE LEVELS, WHICH HER DOCTORS SAY INCREASE HER RISK OF DIABETES AND HYPERTENSION.

LAWYERS FOR COX SAID –

“While Ms. Cox’s life may not be imminently at risk, she is at high risk for many serious medical conditions that pose risks to her future fertility and can become suddenly and unexpectedly life-threatening.”

ACCORDING TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, IF HER PREGNANCY DID BECOME LIFE-THREATENING HER DOCTORS COULD PERFORM AN ABORTION IMMEDIATELY.

THE COURT STATED, 

“A pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a lifesaving abortion in Texas. Our ruling today does not block a life-saving abortion in this very case if a physician determines that one 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 “life threatening physical condition” that places her “at risk of death”

STRAIGHT ARROW NEWS AIMS TO PROVIDE OUR VIEWERS THE CLARITY AND CONTEXT THAT IS SOMETIMES LEFT OUT OF OTHER MEDIA’S COVERAGE ON HIGH-PROFILE NEWS STORIES.

WITH ABORTION SUCH A HOT TOPIC ISSUE IN THE COUNTRY, ESPECIALLY SINCE ROE WAS OVERTURNED, WE WANTED TO TELL YOU THE STORY STRAIGHT FROM THE SOURCES — FROM COX’S PLEA FOR AN ABORTION IN HER LAWSUIT, TO THE COURT’S INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE’S ABORTION EXCEPTION IN ITS RULING.