Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two from Dallas, Texas, sued the state for an abortion after receiving a lethal fetal diagnosis. She left Texas to get the procedure.
The Texas Heartbeat Act, Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), bans abortion after the detection of embryonic or fetal cardiac activity. This usually happens after about six weeks of pregnancy.
Cox wanted to be able to get care where she lives and recover at home with her family. However, most people don’t have the ability to leave the state.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Cox, announced on Monday the 31-year-old mother, who is 21 weeks pregnant, decided to leave the state to get health care elsewhere.
While the center is not disclosing more details about her plans, their statement said she’s received “offers to help her access abortion elsewhere, from Kansas to Colorado to Canada.”
“This past week of legal limbo has been hellish for Kate,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement.
“Her health is on the line. She’s been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn’t wait any longer. This is why judges and politicians should not be making health care decisions for pregnant people—they are not doctors.”
On Thursday, a state district court judge sided with Cox and granted a temporary restraining order against the state so she could legally have an abortion under the state’s “medical emergency” exception. Texas has a nearly complete abortion ban with narrow exceptions.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton quickly threatened criminal prosecution against doctors or hospitals who help facilitate the abortion, saying they could still face charges after the 14-day temporary restraining order expires.
Late Friday night, the high court temporarily blocked Cox from obtaining an abortion while it reviews the details of the case and has not issued a decision since then. A court filing over the weekend supports the Republican attorney general’s petition for the Texas Supreme Court to intervene.
Cox’s attorney said she has been to the emergency room four times in the last month due to symptoms like severe cramping, diarrhea, leaking of fluid and elevated vital signs.
And because she’s already delivered two children via C-section, her physicians have warned she is at high risk for complications, including possible uterine rupture in future pregnancies. According to her attorneys, this pregnancy would need to be delivered via C-section again, which Cox fears could jeopardize her health and future fertility.
Additionally, the fetus has Trisomy 18, sometimes called Edwards syndrome, which is a fatal genetic condition that can cause heart defects and other organ abnormalities. In at least 95% of cases, fetuses don’t survive full term due to complications from the diagnosis, so pregnancies can end in miscarriage or babies are stillborn, according to the Cleveland Clinic.
The “medical emergency” exception in Texas allows for an abortion if the mother has a “life-threatening” physical condition while pregnant or has “a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”
Critics argue the statute is too vague and has a chilling effect on doctors who fear criminal prosecution.
The same legal group representing Cox – the Center for Reproductive Rights – is also representing a group of women and physicians before the Texas Supreme Court in a lawsuit seeking clarity. The state argues the law is adequate.
Cox’s lawsuit is believed to be one of the first attempts in the country by an individual seeking a court-ordered abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, according to the New York Times.
Paxton argued Cox has not established her symptoms as to meet the “life-threatening” criteria in the law. The new filing from his office stated Cox inquired about getting an abortion only after learning her child might not survive the pregnancy or long afterward and already knew she was at risk of needing another C-section before her current pregnancy.
“Plaintiffs plead no facts linking Ms. Cox’s physical condition related to the birth of this child to the loss of fertility. Instead, it appears she will face the same risks regarding the birth of any future child,” the filing states.
Cox spent most of the weekend in bed, her attorney, Molly Duane told CNN’s Poppy Harlow Monday.
“Think about how you would feel,” Duane said. “You get an order saying, ‘Yes, my abortion can go forward. My doctor can give me the lifesaving care–an abortion– which is what I need right now,’ and then all of a sudden, a court steps in and says, on a Friday night, ‘We need more time to think about it.’ Now it’s been all weekend that Kate has been waiting.”
“This is why it is completely untenable for patients to have to come to court and ask for court authorization for lifesaving medical care,” she said. “It’s simply outrageous and people should be outraged but what is happening in Texas right now.”
As his office has done in the broader case on this issue before the state Supreme Court, Paxton’s attorneys also argued “a fatal fetal condition does not meet the medical exception,” adding the exception applies only to the mother’s condition.
Paxton’s office also said none of the physicians who have treated Cox, who live in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, have recommended an abortion.
Dr. Damla Karsan, a Houston based physician, a plaintiff in the other case, is the doctor cited in legal filings as the physician who reviewed Cox’s medical records, recommended the abortion, and has agreed to provide the medical care. The state wrote in the filing Karsan’s recommendation “is not enough.”
“What he’s (Paxton) saying is that physicians in Texas shouldn’t be practicing medicine.” Duane said. “Ken Paxton is practicing medicine – because that’s what he wants – he wants to review her medical records. He wants to decide if he thinks she’s sick enough.”
“And I think what this goes to show, when people tout the medical exceptions to abortion bans as meaning that the abortion bans are OK, and that people who really need care are still getting it, that’s a lie,” she said. “It’s just not true.”
When asked why Cox decided to file suit rather than seek care in another state earlier Thursday, Duane replied, “For most people who need abortion care, they can’t leave their home communities for urgent health care. Getting on the plane in the middle of a medical emergency, let alone an obstetrical emergency, is, is a human rights violation in and of itself.”
Duane would not say where Cox would be getting the abortion but said they planned to help get her care “the fastest way” possible.
