A Texas judge grants a pregnant woman permission to get an abortion despite the state’s ban

Kate Cox is 20 weeks pregnant and has been told her baby is likely to be stillborn or live for a week at most, according to the lawsuit filed in Austin.

Texas’ strict abortion ban will face an unprecedented test Thursday, when a judge considers a request for an emergency court order that would allow a pregnant woman whose fetus has a fatal diagnosis to have an abortion in the state.

The lawsuit filed by Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two from the Dallas area, is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation since the U.S. Supreme Court last year overturned Roe v. Wade, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing Cox.

www.nbcnews.com...


Texas has a very strict abortion law and in most cases abortion is illegal. Abortions have been banned and can only be allowed to save the life of a mother.

But in this case the judge gave the pregnant woman permission to abort her fetus that has a fatal diagnosis. The fetus has a syndrome called trisomy-18 and it's usually fatal as most babies with this syndrome either die before they were born or shortly after and only a very small percentage will live past their 1st birthday.

This is a high risk pregnancy according to the doctors and it can lead to a miscarriage and unnecessary complications for the mother who said she has suffered both physically and mentally

Doctors told Cox that if the baby’s heartbeat were to stop, inducing labor would carry a risk of a uterine rupture because of her prior cesareans, and that another C-section at full term would would endanger her ability to carry another child.

So, is this case opening the door for more abortions that will go against the strict abortion ban in Texas? Are you for or against abortions?



The news update can be found here:

apnews.com...

Court should never be involved in a woman's decision. I'm glad that they ruled the way that they ruled, but gross. It should never go beyond a woman and her doctor.

a reply to: Rosby123

Sounds like the law is working as intended..

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Rosby123

Sounds like the law is working as intended..

The law allows abortions to save the life of the mother but that's not one of these cases in my opinion.

Paxton is now threatening the doctors with jail time if they perform the court ordered abortion.
Texas AG Twitter

Her doctors did state it was medically necessary but would not do so without the court order that was just granted because they are so threatened by the penalties of the new law. They also stated if she waits, with this pregnancy she would need a 3rd c-section which could rob her of her ability to reproduce.

Good on the red states to keep up their war on women. We see how well that's been going for them when it's time to vote. They seem to forget that over 70% of women on both sides of the aisle do not want old men determining control over their bodies, and the claims of "oh, you can still get one when you need it" are being proven over and over again to fail, as women bleed out in their work bathrooms, carry dead fetuses, lose their ability to reproduce, etc.

a reply to: Rosby123

This is absolutely insane and they are putting her life on the line.

From another article:

. Her doctors told her that, because she’s had two previous cesarean sections, she faces a higher risk of uterine rupture and hysterectomy. Despite there being “virtually no chance that their baby would survive to birth or long afterwards”, she’s been unable to get an abortion. The complaint states that “because of Texas’s abortion bans, Ms Cox’s physicians have informed her that their ‘hands are tied’ and she will have to wait until her baby dies inside her or carry the pregnancy to term, at which point she will be forced to have a third C-section, only to watch her baby suffer until death”.

www.theguardian.com...


I noticed a lot of pro life NO abortion proponents are VERY quiet

It says she’s had two c sections prior.
Did she originally plan to deliver this third baby vaginally?

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Rosby123

This is absolutely insane and they are putting her life on the line.

The "pro life" cultists do not care about her, at all.

Thank you, Donald Trump and the Supreme Court, for this mess. It will take years to fix the chaos caused by the overturning of Roe V Wade.

This is only the beginning.

originally posted by: Euronymous2625
Court should never be involved in a woman's decision. I'm glad that they ruled the way that they ruled, but gross. It should never go beyond a woman and her doctor.

This

originally posted by: Vermilion

It says she’s had two c sections prior.
Did she originally plan to deliver this third baby vaginally?

Who knows. What is known is ANY chromosomal abnormality will make much, much more amniotic fluid than a normal pregnancy. Any previous c-sections would be susceptible to rupture.

a reply to: Disgusted123

Roe fish eggs. Wade a method of fishing.

Fishing eggs from the river of life to be eaten by the rich.

These words have been carefully chosen.

Casting the net to the right is a method of guilt and shame. Circular if you understand.

a reply to: Rosby123

Opinions matter not. Facts do.

originally posted by: Vermilion

It says she’s had two c sections prior.
Did she originally plan to deliver this third baby vaginally?

There is no point in delivering this baby.
Is going to die either before it's born or shortly after.

originally posted by: Rosby123

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Rosby123

Sounds like the law is working as intended..

The law allows abortions to save the life of the mother but that's not one of these cases in my opinion.

According to the law they shouldn't let her have an abortion but the judge ruled in her favour and in favour of common sense.

originally posted by: Euronymous2625
Court should never be involved in a woman's decision. I'm glad that they ruled the way that they ruled, but gross. It should never go beyond a woman and her doctor.

The judged ruled against the law.

Time to change the law to allow more flexibility for women who want to have an abortion based on legitimate reasons. But I hold the same view and I think old men and christian right wingers shouldn't get involved in a woman's pregnancy.

originally posted by: Vermilion

It says she’s had two c sections prior.
Did she originally plan to deliver this third baby vaginally?

I agree with what a previous poster said, it appears that the issue with this particular pregnancy and circumstances with the fetus makes it more likely.

I unfortunately was not able to have any vaginal pregnancy as each of my girls stayed transverse and faced backwards, never moving into position for birth. I had no such dire warnings for my third.

Paxton doubling down on the woman and doctors against the court ruling is ridiculous.

originally posted by: Jane1B

originally posted by: Rosby123

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Rosby123

Sounds like the law is working as intended..

The law allows abortions to save the life of the mother but that's not one of these cases in my opinion.

According to the law they shouldn't let her have an abortion but the judge ruled in her favour and in favour of common sense.

And according to common sense, the law is wrong.

a reply to: frogs453

Just absolutely ghoulish. Paxton can't go to jail soon enough.