According to Texas law, an abortion can be performed when a mother’s life is at risk. Kate Cox is now the face of post-Roe controversy after the Texas Supreme Court ruled she did not qualify for an exception.
According to the Texas Supreme Court, Cox’s doctors did not prove her own life was in danger. The high court ruled if circumstances change or have changed and Cox’s doctors determine her life is at risk, then she could get an abortion with no court order needed.
As long as the baby has a heartbeat and Cox’s life is not in danger, the pregnancy cannot be terminated under Texas law.
Cox decided to travel to another state for an abortion procedure.
“Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a ‘life-threatening physical condition,’” the Texas Supreme Court ruled. “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.”
Other factors have driven Cox’s story to the national stage. The fetus was diagnosed with a life-threatening genetic disorder.
“The diagnosis was confirmed: their baby has full Trisomy 18,” the Cox v. Texas lawsuit stated. “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% chance of surviving past the age of one.
Cox’s baby’s life was at risk, but Texas law does not contain any exception to the abortion ban for that reason.
“Ms. Cox asked about termination,” Cox’s lawsuit read. “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 not found to be life-threatening, it did present a risk to future fertility. This would have been Cox’s third C-section, which increases risk for any future pregnancies.
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.
“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,” lawyers for Cox stated in the lawsuit.
According to the Texas Supreme Court, if her pregnancy did become life-threatening, her doctors could perform an abortion immediately.
“A pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a lifesaving abortion in Texas,” the ruling stated. “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.”
