Ken Paxton

[Leftfield 2,601]

Fresh off his impeachment acquittal by 16 surely-unbiased Republicans in the Texas Senate, Ken Paxton continues to show that he's a horrible human being....

 

A Texas judge ruled a pregnant woman who sued the state seeking an abortion can legally terminate her pregnancy

A Texas judge ruled Thursday that a pregnant woman who sued the state seeking a court-ordered abortion can legally terminate her pregnancy.

The decision marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over the state’s medical exception to its controversial ban on abortions after six weeks – one of the strictest in the nation.

Kate Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant, filed a lawsuit this week asking a state district court in Austin court to temporarily block the state’s abortion ban, because she has been unable to get the procedure due to concerns of violating the law. Cox’s baby was diagnosed with trisomy 18 and is not expected to live more than a few days outside the womb, according to the suit.

After the ruling, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton warned Cox’s physician she could still face civil and criminal penalties at some point should she perform the court-ordered procedure.

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.

Cox, 31, has been to three different emergency rooms in the last month due to severe cramping and unidentifiable fluid leaks, according to her suit. She has had two prior cesarean surgeries – C-sections – and, the suit said, “continuing the pregnancy puts her at high risk for severe complications threatening her life and future fertility, including uterine rupture and hysterectomy.”

In an emergency hearing Thursday, a judge granted a temporary restraining order against the state that would allow Cox to immediately have an abortion.

“The idea that Mrs. 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,” Judge Maya Guerra Gamble said. “So I will be signing the order and it will be processed and sent out today.”

Cox and her husband were present for the hearing – which took place over Zoom – and grew emotional at the judge’s decision and could be seen wiping away tears.

Molly Duane, Cox’s attorney, said they are working to figure out “the fastest way to get her abortion care” but will not disclose when for the safety of her client, her family and physician.

Duane said the fight is far from over, as the ruling only applies to Cox and does not “restore access” to abortion to thousands of other women. She called the state’s argument “callous in the extreme,” and said “they don’t care whether people live or die as long as they’re forced to give birth.”

Marc Hearron, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, added: “This can’t be the new normal. I don’t think you can expect to see now hundreds of cases being filed on behalf of patients. It’s not realistic.”

Paxton, in the letter threatening future legal action, wrote that Cox has failed to demonstrate she has a “life-threatening” medical condition related to her pregnancy or that her symptoms place her “at risk of death” or major bodily harm.

The letter was sent to three hospitals in Houston where, according to the Texas Medical Board, Cox’s physician has privileges. It was released to the media by Paxton’s office. CNN has reached out to the hospitals for a response.

The state attorney general warned the hospitals that Thursday’s ruling “will not insulate you, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability,” including first-degree felony prosecutions and civil penalties of at least $100,000 for each violation.

And the ruling, Paxton wrote, does not prevent civil action by private citizens – a reference to Senate Bill 8, the controversial Texas law that allows people to sue those who perform or facilitate an abortion.

Group of 20 women and 2 physicians fight state in separate lawsuits

A lawyer representing Texas argued Thursday that Cox’s pregnancy symptoms did not meet the standard set out by the state for a medical emergency that would allow for an abortion.

Johnathan Stone, special counsel with the state attorney general’s office, said Cox’s doctor made a “subjective” belief that Cox qualified for an abortion, rather than basing her medical opinion on “objective” standards outlined in the law.

The argument over subjective versus objective medical reasons for an abortion is central to the ongoing debate and legal fights regarding the state’s exception rule. Critics argue the rule is vague and unclear – causing doctors, who face a felony for performing an illegal abortion, to refrain from taking action. The state maintains the language in the law is adequate and clear.

Duane argued the state was second-guessing her client’s physicians and saying Cox was not sick enough. Duane works for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which has been involved in a separate court battle against the state to seek clarity on the state’s medical emergency exception.

“They have moved the goalposts once again. Now a patient must be about to die before a doctor can rely on the exception,” she said of the state, calling the position “cruel and dangerous.”

CNN has reached out to the state’s attorney general office for comment.

Trisomy 18, sometimes called Edwards syndrome, is a chromosomal condition that can cause heart defects and other organ abnormalities. In about half of the cases, the fetus dies before birth. Many children who are born with it die within a few days, and more than 90% die within a year.

Attorneys for the state argued Cox’s condition – as laid out in the court filings – was not severe enough to meet the state’s medical exception standard and that the judge would be essentially changing the law if she granted the temporary restraining order.

Cox’s gynecologist, Dr. Damla Karsan, has previously said she had a “good faith belief” that Cox falls under the legal exception to the abortion ban, but couldn’t provide the abortion without a court order because she “cannot risk loss of her medical license, life in prison, and massive civil fines” if her belief is not accepted by the courts.

The state allows for abortions after six weeks if a woman experiences a “medical emergency,” which is defined in the law as “a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.”

A group of 20 women and two physicians have been fighting the state in a separate lawsuit over the medical exception this year, arguing the language in the law is unclear and causes doctors to refrain from performing abortions in serious cases due to a lack of clarity in the law.

Before the Texas Supreme Court last week, an attorney with the state’s attorney general office argued the law was clear and that if women with life-threatening medical issues were not receiving abortions, then it should be considered negligence on the doctor’s part.

Cox said that although she has gone to the emergency room three times with severe cramping, the law is too vague to make clear whether an abortion under those circumstances would be legal.

“I do not want to continue the pain and suffering that has plagued this pregnancy. I do not want to put my body through the risks of continuing this pregnancy,” Cox said in a statement released by the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit in Travis County.

Cox wrote in an op-ed for the Dallas Morning News that her unborn baby girl was diagnosed with full Trisomy 18.

“I’m trying to do what is best for my baby daughter and myself and my family, but we are suffering because of the laws in Texas,” Cox wrote. “I do not want my baby to arrive in this world only to watch her suffer.”

“I need to end my pregnancy now so that I have the best chance for my health, for parenting my children, and for a future pregnancy,” she added.

 

Texas attorney general petitions state supreme court after woman who sued the state was granted permission for an abortion

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to intervene in the case of a pregnant woman who was granted permission by a lower court judge on Thursday to obtain an emergency abortion.

A Texas judge on Thursday granted a 14-day temporary restraining order against the state’s abortion ban, so Kate Cox, who sued the state seeking a court-ordered abortion, could legally terminate her pregnancy.

The decision marked a significant development in the ongoing debate over the state’s medical exception to its controversial ban on abortions after six weeks – one of the strictest in the nation.

In the petition filings with the state Supreme Court, the state asked for an emergency stay of the district court judge’s ruling.

A Texas judge ruled a pregnant woman who sued the state seeking an abortion can legally terminate her pregnancy

Paxton has already threatened prosecution against anyone who helps facilitate the abortion.

In a letter to three hospitals in Houston where, according to the Texas Medical Board, Cox’s physician has privileges, Paxton wrote Cox has failed to demonstrate she has a “life-threatening” medical condition related to her pregnancy or that her symptoms place her “at risk of death” or major bodily harm.

The state attorney general also warned the hospitals Thursday’s ruling “will not insulate you, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability,” including first-degree felony prosecutions and civil penalties of at least $100,000 for each violation.

Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant, sought an emergency hearing to obtain an abortion after learning her unborn baby had trisomy 18, a fatal genetic condition, and is not expected to live more than a few days outside the womb, according to the suit.

Cox, 31, has been to three different emergency rooms in the last month due to severe cramping and unidentifiable fluid leaks, according to her suit. She has had two prior caesarean surgeries – C-sections – and, the suit said, “continuing the pregnancy puts her at high risk for severe complications threatening her life and future fertility, including uterine rupture and hysterectomy.”

Petition shows ‘disregard’ for Cox’s life

Attorneys for Cox and the Center for Reproductive Rights, an abortion rights legal group representing Cox, responded Friday to Paxton’s petition and asked the state’s high court to deny Paxton’s request.

The attorneys called the attorney general’s effort “stunning in its disregard for Ms. Cox’s life, fertility, and the rule of law.”

“The State claims that it alone has the power to value Ms. Cox’s current nonviable pregnancy more highly than Ms. Cox’s own life and life of the future children she and her husband hope to have, regardless of Ms. Cox’s wishes for her family and the good faith advice of her medical team,” their response states.

The response goes on to say the plaintiffs agree the state Supreme Court should take urgent action, “specifically, to remind the Attorney General that he does not exist outside the systems of laws of which he is an officer, and that he must follow court orders just like the citizens he purports to serve.”

The filing also requests the state Supreme Court to reject Paxton’s threat of prosecution of the doctors and anyone else who helps facilitate the abortion.

Molly Duane, Cox’s attorney, would not say Thursday when and where Cox would be getting the abortion but said they planned to help get her the care “the fastest way” possible.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/07/us/texas-abortion-ruling/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/08/us/texas-abortion-ruling-attorney-general-petition/index.html

[tomcat 569]

Funny how so many “freedom” loving republicans lead the charge on imposing restrictions….

[CoffeeTiger 5,109]

3 hours ago, tomcat said:

Funny how so many “freedom” loving republicans lead the charge on imposing restrictions….

Doesn’t even have anything to do with ‘freedom’. this woman has a legitimate medical need for abortion medical services, and Texas/Republicans are denying her because they don’t believe she’s in enough risk or danger yet. 
 

apparently the only ‘legal’ abortion allowed in Texas is if the woman is already on her deathbed.

Disgusting decision by Texas Republicans here, but that’s to be expected of them at this point. 

 

[Leftfield 2,601]

8 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Doesn’t even have anything to do with ‘freedom’. this woman has a legitimate medical need for abortion medical services, and Texas/Republicans are denying her because they don’t believe she’s in enough risk or danger yet. 
 

apparently the only ‘legal’ abortion allowed in Texas is if the woman is already on her deathbed.

Disgusting decision by Texas Republicans here, but that’s to be expected of them at this point. 

 

I don't hold out much hope for her being able to get an abortion, so she will have to go through the trauma of delivering a dead baby or an infant that has a greater than 90% chance of dying in the first year. The alternative is she and her husband will have to provide constant care to a child that has an almost zero chance of living to adulthood, and has no chance at anything approaching a normal life. Not to mention the pregnancy could destroy her ability to have any other children, if it doesn't kill her. 

I'm sure Ken Paxton will be happy for the state to pay for the complete care of the mother and child. And to pay damages for the mother's psychological trauma, particularly if she can't have any other children. After all, he's pro life.

Guessing Paxton will be very thankful for his security escort if he ever finds himself around this woman's husband.

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Sick and cruel.

[SLAG-91 1,483]

7 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Sick and cruel.

On this, sir, we are in 100% lockstep. Paxton should be ashamed of himself...he won't be, of course, but he should be.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

14 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

On this, sir, we are in 100% lockstep. Paxton should be ashamed of himself...he won't be, of course, but he should be.

We should all be ashamed.  If in fact,,, we are the government.

We all need to take a step away from ideology and,,, reaffirm a commitment to truth, humanity, democracy.

[homersapien 11,379]

Well - on the positive side - this sort of behavior will likely ensure Democrats win in 2024.

Edited December 11, 2023 by homersapien

[AU9377 4,935]

These are the same people that would love to be able to charge this woman with a crime if she goes to another state to have the abortion.  This is beyond hateful and backwards.  This is stone age type thinking being applied to life in 2023.

[AUDub 11,149]

On 12/10/2023 at 1:32 PM, homersapien said:

Well - on the positive side - this sort of behavior will likely ensure Democrats win in 2024.

Abortion is going to be a big play and it’s not showing up right now because of how dominated political punditry space is by folks with XY chromosomes.

Here we have an example of the abject cruelty of overturning Roe. It will be an issue. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

This extremism is proof that "exceptions" will not be humanely evaluated.  Medical expertise will not decide your fate,,, political ideologues will decide.