{"id":12555,"date":"2024-01-03T18:03:45","date_gmt":"2024-01-03T18:03:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=12555"},"modified":"2024-01-03T18:03:45","modified_gmt":"2024-01-03T18:03:45","slug":"one-texas-case-shows-why-women-cant-rely-on-legal-exceptions-to-abortion-bans","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=12555","title":{"rendered":"One Texas case shows why women can\u2019t rely on legal exceptions to abortion bans"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\n\n“The Texas<\/a>Supreme Court<\/a> has ruled against Kate Cox, a 31-year-old woman who sought an abortion<\/a> in the state. Previously, Cox argued that the lethal condition impacting her fetus and health risks she\u2019d face during the pregnancy meant she qualified for the exemptions outlined in Texas\u2019s abortion<\/a> ban. The court decision, which comes after Cox left Texas to obtain an abortion, sets a disturbing new precedent in a state that already has one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s a notable ruling because it further narrows what Texas law considers medical exceptions to its abortion ban, and could have implications for other states with similar policies<\/a>. Currently, abortion is broadly banned in the state, and there are limited exceptions for conditions that endanger the life of the mother or that cause \u201csubstantial impairment\u201d of bodily functions. Given how opaque the law is, it was not clear exactly what those exceptions entailed, and though the court didn\u2019t explicitly clarify that ambiguity in its ruling, its decision suggests that health challenges like those Cox faced \u2014 including risks to future pregnancies \u2014 don\u2019t qualify for the exemption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSome difficulties in pregnancy \u2026 even serious ones, do not pose the heightened risks to the mother the exception encompasses,\u201d the court concluded<\/a>, noting that Cox\u2019s doctor hadn\u2019t effectively affirmed that the complications she could face \u2014 including threats to future fertility \u2014 reached the threshold for an exception to the ban.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The justices also maintained existing uncertainty when it came to providers\u2019 prerogative to conduct abortions in the state. Some providers have refrained<\/a> from giving abortion care due to fear of legal consequences: Medical professionals found in violation of Texas\u2019s abortion law can face up to 99 years in prison as well as large fines<\/a>, while those who are found to have aided in providing abortion access can face civil suits<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court ruled that the decision about whether a condition constituted a medical emergency, and thus qualified for an exemption, should be left up to physicians and not the courts. \u201cUnder the law, it is a doctor who must decide that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening condition during a pregnancy, raising the necessity for an abortion to save her life or to prevent impairment of a major bodily function,\u201d the decision reads. The court didn\u2019t resolve the legal tension inherent in the fact that Cox\u2019s doctor felt an abortion was warranted in her case while the court said it was not.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/23997727\/kate-cox-texas-abortion-ban<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The Texas Supreme Court has ruled against Kate Cox, a 31-year-old woman who sought an abortion in the state. Previously, Cox argued that the lethal condition impacting her fetus and health risks she\u2019d face during the pregnancy meant she qualified for the exemptions outlined in Texas\u2019s abortion ban. The court decision, which comes after Cox left Texas to obtain an abortion, sets a disturbing new precedent in a state that already has one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country.
\nIt\u2019s a notable ruling because it further narrows what Texas law considers medical exceptions to its abortion ban, and could have implications for other states with similar policies. Currently, abortion is broadly banned in the state, and there are limited exceptions for conditions that endanger the life of the mother or that cause \u201csubstantial impairment\u201d of bodily functions. Given how opaque the law is, it was not clear exactly what those exceptions entailed, and though the court didn\u2019t explicitly clarify that ambiguity in its ruling, its decision suggests that health challenges like those Cox faced \u2014 including risks to future pregnancies \u2014 don\u2019t qualify for the exemption.<\/p>\n

\u201cSome difficulties in pregnancy \u2026 even serious ones, do not pose the heightened risks to the mother the exception encompasses,\u201d the court concluded, noting that Cox\u2019s doctor hadn\u2019t effectively affirmed that the complications she could face \u2014 including threats to future fertility \u2014 reached the threshold for an exception to the ban.<\/p>\n

The justices also maintained existing uncertainty when it came to providers\u2019 prerogative to conduct abortions in the state. Some providers have refrained from giving abortion care due to fear of legal consequences: Medical professionals found in violation of Texas\u2019s abortion law can face up to 99 years in prison as well as large fines, while those who are found to have aided in providing abortion access can face civil suits.<\/p>\n

The court ruled that the decision about whether a condition constituted a medical emergency, and thus qualified for an exemption, should be left up to physicians and not the courts. \u201cUnder the law, it is a doctor who must decide that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening condition during a pregnancy, raising the necessity for an abortion to save her life or to prevent impairment of a major bodily function,\u201d the decision reads. The court didn\u2019t resolve the legal tension inherent in the fact that Cox\u2019s doctor felt an abortion was warranted in her case while the court said it was not.”<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/23997727\/kate-cox-texas-abortion-ban<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[521,321,800,21,1098],"class_list":["post-12555","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-abortion","tag-ban","tag-bans","tag-texas","tag-women"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12555","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12555"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12555\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12556,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12555\/revisions\/12556"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12555"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12555"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12555"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}