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

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

That's life in Texas!

All the doctor needed to do was say it was high risk and wouldn't do that... So I don't know what to say, but maybe you should not live in Texas.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xtrozero

Plaintiffs’ claim that “Kate Cox needs an abortion, and she needs it now” through relief from this Court is demonstrably false. Pls.’ Pet. ¶ 1. The Cox’s purport to be Dallas residents seeking to obtain an abortion in Houston. Id. at ¶ 6. Yet, at this very moment, they reside in Florida.

WOW! Ken Paxton is a bigger douche bag than I thought! Kate Cox fled to Florida, to be in a medically safe place where the doctors weren't being threatened with life in prison and eternal vigilante lawsuits for helping her, while waiting for their case to be judicated.

And then they're making it illegal to flee.

But, Hey! Less government.

Leaving Texas to have an abortion is LEGAL.
Look this stuff up if you have no clue.

Did I mention Texas?

a reply to: Xtrozero

All the doctor needed to do was say it was high risk and wouldn't do that

For weeks, Ms. Cox’s physicians have been telling her that early screening and ultrasound tests suggest that her pregnancy is unlikely to end with a healthy baby. Because Ms. Cox has had two prior cesarean surgeries (“C-sections”), continuing the pregnancy puts her at high risk for severe complications threatening her life and future fertility, including uterine rupture and hysterectomy.

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.

s3.documentcloud.org...

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: Sookiechacha

All the facts I’ve posted came from the court records themselves.
Kate’s doctor is the sole reason why Kate didn’t have an abortion in Texas.

Right. Kate's doctor didn't want spend the rest of his life in prison, nor did he want to endure endless vigilante lawsuits. Because, Texas' misogynous anti-women's health laws target doctors first and the people who would aide women in need second. in order to keep women in their real place, behind everyone else, especially an embryo or a fetus.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It seems she did not say the same thing in court, and she did not say officially what was needed to keep the court out of it. I'm not trying to argue you with about this, just what the court disposition was saying. Stories are written to a narrative.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Right. Kate's doctor didn't want spend the rest of his life in prison, nor did he want to endure endless vigilante lawsuits.

Your opinion?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You keep referring to Kate’s initial petition.

The problem with that is its only an opinion of the facts before they to went to court.

When they were in court, Kate’s doctor testified that Kate’s health was NOT at high risk to provide her a legal abortion.
txcourts.gov...

By the way, Kate’s doctor is a woman.
The Texas Supreme Court has a few women as well.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xtrozero

Plaintiffs’ claim that “Kate Cox needs an abortion, and she needs it now” through relief from this Court is demonstrably false. Pls.’ Pet. ¶ 1. The Cox’s purport to be Dallas residents seeking to obtain an abortion in Houston. Id. at ¶ 6. Yet, at this very moment, they reside in Florida.

WOW! Ken Paxton is a bigger douche bag than I thought! Kate Cox fled to Florida, to be in a medically safe place where the doctors weren't being threatened with life in prison and eternal vigilante lawsuits for helping her, while waiting for their case to be judicated.

And then they're making it illegal to flee.

But, Hey! Less government.

Illegal to flee from where?

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You keep referring to Kate’s initial petition.

The problem with that is its only an opinion of the facts before they to went to court.

When they were in court, Kate’s doctor testified that Kate’s health was NOT at high risk to provide her a legal abortion.
txcourts.gov...

By the way, Kate’s doctor is a woman.
The Texas Supreme Court has a few women as well.

What does Texas state is the requirement for high risk?

Is a doctor free to determine by their opinion alone -- or bound by other determinations?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You keep referring to Kate’s initial petition.

The problem with that is its only an opinion of the facts before they to went to court.

When they were in court, Kate’s doctor testified that Kate’s health was NOT at high risk to provide her a legal abortion.
txcourts.gov...

By the way, Kate’s doctor is a woman.
The Texas Supreme Court has a few women as well.

What does Texas state is the requirement for high risk?

Is a doctor free to determine by their opinion alone -- or bound by other determinations?

From the court record…
“Under 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.”
“The law leaves to physicians—not judges—both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient.”
txcourts.gov...

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xtrozero

Plaintiffs’ claim that “Kate Cox needs an abortion, and she needs it now” through relief from this Court is demonstrably false. Pls.’ Pet. ¶ 1. The Cox’s purport to be Dallas residents seeking to obtain an abortion in Houston. Id. at ¶ 6. Yet, at this very moment, they reside in Florida.

WOW! Ken Paxton is a bigger douche bag than I thought! Kate Cox fled to Florida, to be in a medically safe place where the doctors weren't being threatened with life in prison and eternal vigilante lawsuits for helping her, while waiting for their case to be judicated.

And then they're making it illegal to flee.

But, Hey! Less government.

Illegal to flee from where?

No state has yet enacted a law to ban this travel. But it has been attempted.

Texas has at least three separate laws on the books designed to make getting an abortion nearly impossible.

That Texas Abortion Case Is Even Worse Than You Think: www.msn.com...


But, could you afford to travel to another state, pay lodging, pay for medical care, etc?

Does your insurance travel out of state?: BANS ON INSURANCE COVERAGE OF ABORTION: www.aclu.org...

a reply to: Vermilion

When they were in court, Kate’s doctor testified that Kate’s health was NOT at high risk to provide her a legal abortion.

Nope. I'm not seeing any transcripts or even an allusion to that being true in your link.

What I am seeing is Cox's lawyer arguing on behalf of her doctors, regarding the legal implications of the terms 'Good Faith" versus "Reasonable Medical Judgement", and how invoking "Reasonable Medical Judgement" is a "Trigger Trap", preferring the previous standard of "Good Faith", as being safer for the physician.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

When they were in court, Kate’s doctor testified that Kate’s health was NOT at high risk to provide her a legal abortion.

Nope. I'm not seeing any transcripts or even an allusion to that being true in your link.

What I am seeing is Cox's lawyer arguing on behalf of her doctors, regarding the legal implications of the terms 'Good Faith" versus "Reasonable Medical Judgement", and how invoking "Reasonable Medical Judgement" is a "Trigger Trap", preferring the previous standard of "Good Faith", as being safer for the physician.

Thank you.

That addresses my question.

a reply to: Vermilion

“The law leaves to physicians—not judges—both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient.”

But the law doesn't protect the physician from prosecution nor lawsuits, should someone claim that their action was NOT reasonable.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

When they were in court, Kate’s doctor testified that Kate’s health was NOT at high risk to provide her a legal abortion.

Nope. I'm not seeing any transcripts or even an allusion to that being true in your link.

What I am seeing is Cox's lawyer arguing on behalf of her doctors, regarding the legal implications of the terms 'Good Faith" versus "Reasonable Medical Judgement", and how invoking "Reasonable Medical Judgement" is a "Trigger Trap", preferring the previous standard of "Good Faith", as being safer for the physician.

From page 2 of the decision…

In this case, the pleadings state that Ms. Cox's doctor—Dr. Damla Karsan-believes Ms. Cox qualifies for an abortion based on the medical-necessity exception. But when she sued seeking a court's pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a "life-threatening physical condition" or that, in Dr. Karsan's reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Right. Kate's doctor didn't want spend the rest of his life in prison, nor did he want to endure endless vigilante lawsuits.

Your opinion?

They were threatened. That's not an opinion.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

“The law leaves to physicians—not judges—both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient.”

But the law doesn't protect the physician from prosecution nor lawsuits, should someone claim that their action was NOT reasonable.

Also from page 2…

Only a doctor can exercise "reasonable medical judgment"1 to decide whether a pregnant woman "has a life-threatening physical condition," making an abortion necessary to save her life or to save her from "a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function." If a doctor, using her "reasonable medical judgment," decides that a pregnant woman has such a condition, then the exception applies, and Texas law does not prohibit the abortion.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

When they were in court, Kate’s doctor testified that Kate’s health was NOT at high risk to provide her a legal abortion.

Nope. I'm not seeing any transcripts or even an allusion to that being true in your link.

What I am seeing is Cox's lawyer arguing on behalf of her doctors, regarding the legal implications of the terms 'Good Faith" versus "Reasonable Medical Judgement", and how invoking "Reasonable Medical Judgement" is a "Trigger Trap", preferring the previous standard of "Good Faith", as being safer for the physician.

From page 2 of the decision…

In this case, the pleadings state that Ms. Cox's doctor—Dr. Damla Karsan-believes Ms. Cox qualifies for an abortion based on the medical-necessity exception. But when she sued seeking a court's pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a "life-threatening physical condition" or that, in Dr. Karsan's reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires.

Right. It's all explained in the orginal pleading, why the doctor wouldn't use the phrase "reasonable medical judgment", because it's a trigger trap that provides no protection for the physician, but leaned on the legal term "Good Faith" as federal law requires.

(2) Exception: Application to Inpatients.
(i) If a hospital has screened an individual under paragraph (a) of this section and found the individual to have an emergency medical condition, and admits that individual as an inpatient in good faith in order to stabilize the emergency medical condition, the hospital has satisfied its special responsibilities under this section with respect to that individua

www.cms.gov...

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

“The law leaves to physicians—not judges—both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient.”

But the law doesn't protect the physician from prosecution nor lawsuits, should someone claim that their action was NOT reasonable.

Also from page 2…

Only a doctor can exercise "reasonable medical judgment"1 to decide whether a pregnant woman "has a life-threatening physical condition," making an abortion necessary to save her life or to save her from "a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function." If a doctor, using her "reasonable medical judgment," decides that a pregnant woman has such a condition, then the exception applies, and Texas law does not prohibit the abortion.

Also, the law doesn't protect the physician from prosecution or lawsuits, should someone claim that their action, based on reasonable medical judgement, was NOT reasonable. However, they would be protected by using the term "Good Fath".

Kate's pleading asked for a restraining order against prosecution and lawsuits, which was granted.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Right. It's all explained in the orginal pleading, why the doctor wouldn't use the phrase "reasonable medical judgment", because it's a trigger trap that provides no protection for the physician, but leaned on the legal term "Good Faith" as federal law requires.

Thanks again.

That's what I thought.