What does the Texas Supreme Court ruling on emergency abortions mean for
patients?
Send a link to a friend
[December 13, 2023]
By Brendan Pierson
(Reuters) -Monday's ruling from the Texas Supreme Court denying a
woman's request for an emergency abortion shines a spotlight on the
medical exceptions contained in many U.S. states' abortion bans. Here
are some of the most important facts about the case, and what it could
mean:
WHAT IS TEXAS' MEDICAL EXCEPTION?
Texas has banned nearly all abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court last
June overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which had
guaranteed abortion rights nationwide. Texas' ban includes an exception
allowing the procedure if, in a doctor's "reasonable medical judgment,"
the mother has a "life-threatening condition" related to the pregnancy
that puts her at risk of death or "substantial impairment of a major
bodily function."
IF THERE IS AN EXCEPTION, WHY WAS THERE A LAWSUIT?
Since states began banning abortion last year, doctors and advocates
have raised alarms that the medical exceptions are vague, making them
difficult or impossible to rely on in practice, because it's unclear how
close to death a pregnant woman needs to be for the exception to apply.
In their lawsuit against the state, Kate Cox and her doctor Damla Karsan
sought permission to end Cox's complicated, non-viable pregnancy. The
lawsuit said that, while Karsan believed in good faith that Cox
qualified for the exception, she was unwilling to perform the abortion
without a court order because of the steep potential penalties under
Texas laws, including loss of her license and life in prison, if Cox was
later considered not to have qualified for the exception.
HOW DID THE CASE REACH THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT?
A judge in Austin granted the court order Cox and Karsan sought, but
Texas' Republican Attorney General, Ken Paxton, quickly asked the
state's Supreme Court to overrule it and threatened hospitals where
Karsan had admitting privileges with prosecution anyway.
While the Supreme Court was considering the case, Cox left the state to
get the abortion.
WHAT DID THE SUPREME COURT DO?
The court found that Cox had not shown that she met the specific
requirements of the medical exception, and rejected the idea that courts
had a role in pre-approving who qualifies for the exception.
It wrote that a woman who meets the exception "need not seek a court
order to obtain an abortion," and that the law "leaves to physicians -
not judges - both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise
their reasonable medical judgment."
[to top of second column]
|
Kate Cox, a 31 year old woman from the Dallas-Fort Worth area who
had asked a court for an order allowing her to get an abortion under
the medical emergency exception to Texas' near-total ban and will
leave the state to receive care while the state's highest court
considers her case, poses in an undated photograph. Courtesy of Kate
Cox/Handout via REUTERS/ File Photo
WHERE DOES THE RULING LEAVE OTHER
PATIENTS?
The ruling only directly affects Cox. However, it gives clues about
how the court will rule in a separate lawsuit it is considering,
brought by 22 patients and doctors including Karsan, seeking a
broader order interpreting the medical exception that could apply to
all patients and doctors in Texas.
That case asks the court to shield doctors from prosecution if they
believe in "good faith" that an abortion is necessary to preserve
the mother's health.
The Supreme Court said in Cox's case that "good faith" was not
enough, and that doctors must instead act according to "reasonable
medical judgment," signaling how it will likely rule on the core
issue in the larger case, in favor of the state.
Essentially, the court is very unlikely to assuage Texas doctors'
concerns about providing abortion care pursuant to the medical
exception, and patients who have the means will likely continue to
leave the state for care.
WHAT ABOUT OTHER STATES?
All states with abortion bans have some form of medical exception.
Their language varies, and each state's courts are responsible for
interpreting them. There are already signs that the exceptions will
be the subject of future litigation.
Planned Parenthood last month asked a court to clarify Indiana's
exception, and a trial in that case is scheduled for May. The
state's Supreme Court had previously found that its constitution
included a right to abortion to preserve the mother's life or
health.
In March, Oklahoma's Supreme Court ruled in another lawsuit by
Planned Parenthood that said the state's constitution includes a
right to abortion to save the mother's life, and that a doctor need
not necessarily wait until she is in immediate danger, going further
than the exception set out in the state's abortion ban.
(Reporting By Brendan Pierson in New York, Editing by Alexia
Garamfalvi and Bill Berkrot)
[© 2023 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |