The Supreme Court of Texas has overturned a ruling that would have allowed a woman to terminate her pregnancy under the medical exception to the state’s near-total abortion ban.
The unanimous ruling came hours after lawyers for Kate Cox, who was 20 weeks pregnant, revealed that she had left the state to obtain an abortion.
Ms Cox, 31, turned to the legal system after being told if she continued with her current pregnancy, her baby would likely be stillborn as it has a condition called Trisomy 18 and has no chance of survival.
No, not forced birth, rather this:
Nine Republican lawmakers ruled on Monday that a “good faith belief” by Damla Karsan, a doctor who sought to perform the abortion on the grounds it was medically necessary, was not enough to qualify for the state’s exception.
Instead, the court said, Dr Karsan would need to determine in her “reasonable medical judgment” that Ms Cox had a “life-threatening condition” and that an abortion was necessary to prevent her death or impairment of a major bodily function.
“A woman who meets the medical-necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion,” the court wrote.
“The law leaves to physicians – not judges – both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient.’’
They’ve changed the law. As ususal, the law is slightly vague. Therefore greater clrification of what the law actually says is necessary – it being the US, through the court system.
Think it’s a bit odd to call the Supreme Court of TX 9 lawmakers but still. Such running of the first few cases up and down the legal system is normal when the law is changed. Any law in any direction. Just the way the system works.
Think it’s a bit odd to call the Supreme Court of TX 9 lawmakers but still
Really? It’s the Torygraph, they’re wetter than Diane Abbott at an underwater buffet.
They’re reporting this story in this way so you know Republicans are Bad People. Baron Hannan and all the rest of the Conservative Party are very alarmed that Mr Trump still exists, and would much rather be told what to do by Democrats.
Nota Benny
Speaking on behalf of the Centre for Reproductive Rights, a New York-based non-profit that has been supporting Ms Cox, lawyer Molly Duane said the ruling ‘‘should enrage every Texan to their core’’.
The ‘Centre for Reproductive Rights’ is a Soros-funded entity. The way these corrupt NGOs work is, they scour the targeted state or country for extreme cases they can use as a wedge issue in a form of hybrid sociopolitical warfare with the media providing overwatch.
(The Irish were so effectively and elegantly mugged in this way, they still don’t realise they’ve been ratfucked by the abortionists, who are the exact same people now telling them Ireland belongs to brown migrants)
Why does
SatanGeorge Soros want more dead American babies?““A woman who meets the medical-necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion,” the court wrote.
“The law leaves to physicians – not judges – both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient.’’”
Does this not give the doctors the right to dole out the abortions just like in the UK then? If a Texan doctor declares that in his medical judgement the health of the mother is compromised, then by the court wording above it de facto is the case, and an abortion can be performed perfectly legally. And we all know that doctors are somewhat flexible in their morals, and there will always be one prepared to make that call (for a suitable fee naturally). I mean in the UK abortion is legally only allowed where the health of the mother is compromised, and yet we have de facto abortion on demand. So is this now not the case in Texas after this ruling?
The court seems to have decided that the law says that an abortion can be carried out if there is a threat to the mother’s life, but if not, not.
Which incidentally aligns with Catholic doctrine, I think.
Some babies with Edwards syndrome do survive, but not for long.
Yes Steve, they do that. But you realise the folks on the other side do it too, right? And they’re much better at it.
You know what else happens (or happened, I guess) a bunch of states, like Texas, enacted aggressive anti-abortion laws so that activist anti-abortion dark money could keep taking cases through compliant courts to eventually get to a Supreme Court, with a majority of justices who’ve come up through a very tailored path, some of who, just outright lied about what they would do when given the opportunity to overturn Roe… all of which is, as proven by every abortion-specific poll or ballot, is absolutely not the will of the majority… at the federal or the state levels.
So yeah, if someone wants to thrown some coin at making the results of all of that look as bad as possible, maybe it’s fair enough. Let them have that. Let’s be honest.. it is far too little far too late because the republican legal project has been magnificently executed over decades and is happily trampling over whatever rights the authoritarians and money men don’t like while you clap along cos it’s all worth it if The Libs are getting owned. Of course they give no shits at all about abortion except insofar as it delivers a useful number of votes from people who might otherwise realise that, actually, both sides of American politics hates their guts.
A lot of people are being mugged, chap. Apparently, including you.
Jim – Does this not give the doctors the right to dole out the abortions just like in the UK then?
Yes.
But they do need to determine in their “reasonable medical judgement” that the mother’s life is threatened. It’s not a high bar to overcome, so it’s deliberate that the Soros NGO specifically chose a (horrible and tragic, as these cases always are) case like this to litigate: one where the doctor very pointedly did not issue medical advice that met the minimum requirement of the law.
(If you’re trying to use the Supreme Court – state or federal – to overturn Texas abortion law, you want a case like this as otherwise she’d just quietly get an abortion completely legally in Texas and you’d never have heard about it).
In his petition, Mr Paxton had argued Ms Cox did not not demonstrate the pregnancy put her life in danger.
“The Texas legislature did not intend for courts to become revolving doors of permission slips to obtain abortions,” he wrote last week
It’s not easy to understand from the Torygraph article who initiated the lawfare in this case, but my guess is the ‘Center for Reproductive Rights’ filed a lawsuit against the state, and that naturally brought it to the Texas Attorney General’s desk.
The State of Texas decided to defend its law in this case. But it’s inconceivable (ummm… ha?) that Texan Republicans would want to, or be able to, second guess the judgment of doctors so long as they’re not openly defying the law.
Since, as Philip says, babies with this tragic syndrome are very unlikely to survive, it should not be beyond the wit of a doctor to find in his reasonable medical judgement that the life of a mother might well be endangered if she is forced to wait until the child in her womb dies.
Again, another reason why this case has been brought to attention. I believe lawyers could easily have gotten a Texan doctor to agree with the mother, but the Center for Reproductive Rights isn’t interested in her, it’s interested in removing all legal impediments to abortion.
NB the court’s ruling was unanimous.
The BBC says:
According to Ms Cox’s court filings, doctors refused to perform an abortion on her, saying their “hands were tied” as long as her baby had a heartbeat.
That’s a total fucking lie as the Supreme Court of Texas explained, but I believe she was actually told this, because it’s very likely Ms Cox was recruited, set up and groomed to be a sympathetic litigant, by people she probably thinks are her friends.
Ruth Baby Ginsters –
You shall not kill.
Appeal courts determine hard cases in law. In this case they have decided:
Ectopic pregnancy? Go right ahead.
Down’s syndrome? Don’t you dare.
Shame the court had to decide on a real not a hypothetical case, but that’s the way the law works.
Jim. Given the controversy, the licensing and insurance cost for doctors, and the money from militants, I very much doubt that Texas doctors will be performing abortions as readily as they do in the UK.
Steve
If the US didn’t execute people, including children, at home.. as well as whoever the fuck it wants to overseas.. there would at least be a bit of moral consistency behind the obsession with abortion. But it does, and there isn’t. Whether it’s Soros or Koch paying the bills, it’s never about what they say it’s about.
Personally, I rank the bodily autonomy women over the rights of an unborn child. I respect the right to think otherwise, but I don’t respect hypocrisy or ignorance, and your post reeked of at least one of those.
Ruth Baby Ginsters – but I don’t respect hypocrisy or ignorance, and your post reeked of at least one of those
I honestly don’t give a fuck.
Just don’t kill babies.
Ruth
I tend to go with Steve here. I hate the thought of killing a child, unborn or otherwise.
But then I’d have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki without hesitation, as it provided the excuse to bring my father and uncle home from the damn war before it killed them.
So I suppose it’s just a matter of whatever floats your boat.
– I mean in the UK abortion is legally only allowed where the health of the mother is compromised, and yet we have de facto abortion on demand. So is this now not the case in Texas after this ruling?
The Texas law appears to be much stricter than the UK. The term “life threatening condition” suggests an abortion is permitted if a continuation of the pregnancy would likely kill the mother. In the UK, an abortion is permitted if the continuation of the pregancy risks of injury to the mother’s physical or mental health. It’s this mental health angle that makes it de facto abortion-on-demand (up to 24 weeks).
I don’t think abortionists are murderers but I still wouldn’t invite one home to meet my mum and dad.
The Texas court has not changed the law, they have clarified it. It’s a pencil sharpener not a machete. granted there’s some element of mind reading the intentions of the legislators but it’s far less activist than UK appeal courts, it seems to me.
Ruth’s equivocation about judicial murder of criminals and terrorists v unborn babies is just dumb whataboutery.
“Ruth Baby Ginsters –
You shall not kill.”
Except Amalekites and other enemies of the Hebrews who are all to be slaughtered, yay even unto their goldfish and gerbils.
Wonderful text, the OT: you can find moral advice of whatever sort you fancy. I can see why the early Christians decided to retain the bloody thing but they were wrong.
If you enjoy that sort of thing, dearieme, you should try the koran. It’s a hoot.
@PJF: I agree that the Texan wording is far more stringent than the UK one. However the court ruling seems to suggest that if any doctor decrees that they consider there to be a life threatening condition then one exists in law, because they have said so, and its not for the courts to decree otherwise. Ergo any Texan doctor can decree what he or she likes, and can’t be countermanded by the courts.
I would expect abortion minded doctors to use this ruling to bring abortion on demand back in Texas. After all, whats going to happen? Doctor A declares Patient B to have a ‘life threatening condition’ and must be allowed an abortion, and performs one. Who can gainsay this decision? The courts have made it clear in this ruling they aren’t going to get into medical matters between doctor and patient, especially if brought by third parties with no direct link to the case. So any given doctor’s decision will stand. All you need to find is a doctor prepared to say black is white, and the courts are saying ‘He’s a doctor, so it must be true’.
“ Ruth’s equivocation about judicial murder of criminals and terrorists v unborn babies is just dumb whataboutery.”
Not in response to ‘thou shalt not kill’ it isn’t.
I’m no bible scholar, but I know the Ten Commandments didn’t come with a carve-out for the state.
“you should try the koran.” I did.
“It’s a hoot.” Much of it was undecipherable, just utter confusion. That’s why one anonymous scholar suggested that a large part of it isn’t written in Arabic at all but in a form of Syriac. I don’t know whether he’s right but I do understand his compulsion to offer some explanation for the mess.
I suppose the sequence Allah -> Gabriel -> The Prophet (pbuh) -> The Prophet’s scribes -> odds and sods who survived the early wars -> chaps who’d spoken to said odds and sods -> chaps hired by politicians to impose particular messages in the text … does leave ample space for confusion and corruption.
The mental health angle doesn’t seem to take into account the effect of an abortion on a woman’s mental health.
Well at least the Ottomans edited Mo’s table talk down from an impossible 200,000 pages to a slightly less unendurable 10,000 or so.
O/T a quick google fails to find a Downfall spoof of Hamas leadership in the Gaza tunnels. I’d have thought it a prime target. Censorship by Utube?
Since the torah doesn’t say ‘thou shalt not kill’, arguing about the nuances of that phrase is more than usually pointless.
= Ergo any Texan doctor can decree what he or she likes, and can’t be countermanded by the courts.
Jim, it seems true that the court can’t second guess a doctor’s medical judgement in this scenario. But a doctor straight up lying about a serious medical condition in order to commit a serious crime is different to just agreeing with a pregnant woman’s statements about her mental health.
Doctor’s don’t function in a vacuum; they have to work with others to make complex diagnosese; they will face assessments within their own profession and they’ll usually be working for litigiously cautious outfits. Unusual patterns of abortions will be spotted in a hostile environment. I’m not saying there won’t be occasional instances but hiding illicit abortions in Texas will likely be too difficult and risky to become commonplace. It’s easier to just suggest a trip to Colorado (or wherevs).
It’ll be interesting to see if Texas’s stance holds. Strong anti-abortion has been a losing issue for Republicans in some surpring states; it seems a lot of “rednecks” like having an optout. Democrats might end up being happy with the issue being dealt with at state level.
Ye gads, grocers’ doctors. I need sleep.
Yeh, saw this. Thought: “must be an activist – a normal person in that situation wouldn’t go court bothering, she’d just take a trip to a state that does abortion on demand”. And reading above, turns out to be a Soros funded court bothering activist.