![]() each hour it remains in place is an hour that Plaintiffs believe themselves free to perform and procure an elective abortion," Paxton's office said in the filing.Ĭox's lawyers urged the court to deny Paxton's request. "Because Plaintiffs evidently believe (incorrectly) that the TRO immunizes them from civil or criminal enforcement actions. The office argued in the filing that Cox did not meet the standards for an emergency medical abortion and that Judge Gamble had abused her discretion by issuing the TRO. "The idea that Miss Cox wants desperately to be a parent and this law might actually cause her to lose that ability is shocking and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice," Gamble said.īy late Thursday night, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office had submitted to the Texas Supreme Court a writ of mandamus, or a petition to reverse the lower court's order. Gamble was unmoved by state attorney Johnathan Stone’s arguments that Cox’s condition did not meet the standard for an emergency medical abortion. In an emergency hearing that lasted about a half hour Thursday, Judge Maya Guerra Gamble of Travis County’s 459th District Court heard arguments from Cox’s lawyers and from state attorneys. Texas, which is currently before the Texas Supreme Court and seeks to clarify the exception to Texas' abortion law as it applies in emergency situations. Karsan is also a plaintiff in Zurawski v. Damla Karsan, an additional plaintiff, to perform the abortion. ![]() The lawsuit specifically asked for permission to be granted to Dr. It also sought to protect Cox’s husband from liability under Senate Bill 8, a law that allows private citizens to report individuals who help someone get an abortion. It argued doctors are afraid to risk liability and perform the procedure because the exception is so ambiguous. Under Texas’ three overlapping abortion bans, an emergency medical abortion is permitted only in cases where there's a “life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy” or that “places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”Ĭox’s suit sought a TRO allowing for an emergency abortion under the exception. Doctors also said delivery would be dangerous for Cox, and her ability to carry future pregnancies would be jeopardized. Based on ultrasounds and testing, doctors said her pregnancy was likely to end in miscarriage or stillbirth, or the baby surviving a few days at most. Wade and the first of its kind since Texas banned the procedure.Īccording to the filing, Cox's fetus was diagnosed with trisomy 18, a condition that is usually fatal. Cox’s legal team believes it is the first case in which a woman directly petitioned the state to allow an abortion since the 1973 passage of Roe v. Texas Tuesday on behalf of Kate Cox, a pregnant woman from the Dallas-Fort Worth area. ![]() The Center for Reproductive Rights made the initial filing in Cox v. Editor's note: This story was updated to reflect that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office has asked the Texas Supreme Court to reverse the lower court's order.Ī Texas judge granted a temporary restraining order Thursday allowing a pregnant woman to get an abortion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |