The Texas Supreme Court issued a ruling Friday allowing a lawsuit challenging the state’s multiple abortion bans to proceed, but the court declined to block the bans as the legal challenge continues.
The suit was filed last year by women who say their lives have been put in danger because of the state’s bans. Originally made up of five plaintiffs, the lawsuit now includes more than 20 women who say their care was affected by the bans.
Texas has several abortion laws that ban almost all abortions except in cases of medical emergencies, which the laws do not define. The women who filed the complaint said they were denied care despite experiencing dangerous pregnancy-related complications.
Anti-abortion protesters demonstrate during a women’s march in Austin, Texas on October 8, 2022.
Montinique Monroe/Bloomberg via Getty Images, FILE
Although the lawsuit may continue in state trial court, the Supreme Court has not authorized a temporary injunction on the bans while the litigation continues. Lower court Judge Jessica Mangrum granted the injunction against the bans because they involve medical emergencies and fatal fetal diagnoses and denied the state’s request to dismiss the case before the case is heard by the State Supreme Court.
In the court’s opinion issued Friday, the judges rejected the allegations made by the women participating in the trial.
“Texas law allows for life-saving abortion. Under the Human Life Protection Act, a physician may perform an abortion if, through the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, he or she determines that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening physical condition that places her at risk of death or serious physical impairment, unless an abortion is performed,” Texas Supreme Court Justice Jane Bland wrote in the opinion. majority of the court.
“The law allows a physician to intervene to remedy a woman’s life-threatening physical condition before death or serious physical impairment is imminent. Because the trial court’s injunction departed from the law as written without constitutional justification, we vacate its order,” the majority opinion said. said.
The Supreme Court also found that the trial court overstepped the mark by permitting abortion “for any ‘at risk’ pregnancy.”
“All pregnancies carry risks. The law limits permitted abortions to life-threatening conditions “aggravated by, caused by, or arising from pregnancy.” Although simply being pregnant can increase the risk of death or injury for the mother, the pregnancy itself is not a risk “a life-threatening physical condition” within the meaning of the law,” the court wrote.
“By differentiating ordinary risks of pregnancy—those that can be treated without an abortion—from conditions for which the law permits abortion, the legislature drew the line between “life-threatening physical conditions.” Because that the trial court’s order opens the door to allowing abortion to address any risk of pregnancy, it does not constitute a faithful interpretation of the law A trial court does not have authority. discretion to incorrectly interpret the law in ordering a temporary injunction,” the court wrote.
The court also wrote that the trial court’s blocking of the bans regarding medical emergencies “departed from the law as written without constitutional justification,” the majority opinion said.
“Texas law permits life-saving abortion. A physician may not be fined or disciplined for performing an abortion when the physician, exercising reasonable medical judgment, concludes (1) that a pregnant woman presents with a life-threatening physical condition, and (2) that such condition presents a risk of death or serious physical impairment unless an abortion is performed,” the court wrote in its opinion.
“A doctor who says to a patient: ‘Your life is threatened by a complication during your pregnancy and you could die, or there is a serious risk that you will suffer significant physical disability unless an abortion is not be performed’, and in the same breath, ‘but the law does not permit me to perform an abortion in these circumstances,’ is simply wrong in this legal assessment,” the court’s majority opinion said.
Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement: “This decision provides no real clarity for doctors, and it is deeply offensive to the women we represent – they are completely excluded from the opinion. as if they didn’t exist or didn’t matter. Of course, women at death’s door should have the most basic right to bodily autonomy to protect their lives and health.
Amanda Zurawski speaks during a press conference held by members of the Pro-Choice Caucus and the Democratic Women’s Caucus at the U.S. Capitol on March 7, 2024 in Washington, DC.
Kent Nishimura/Getty Images, FILE
However, the court opinion acknowledged that at least some of the women who filed the suit suffered from life-threatening illnesses.
“The State does not dispute that at least some of these complications present life-threatening conditions for which abortion may be indicated,” the court said.
The admission comes months after the state Supreme Court refused to allow Texas woman Kate Cox to have an abortion for a pregnancy with serious abnormalities and a high risk of debilitating health complications, including loss of fertility.
In explaining why it found that one of the plaintiffs, Dr. Damla Karsan, had standing to sue, the court cited a letter sent to Houston hospitals by the state attorney general threatening liability s They allowed Karsan to provide Cox with an abortion. Before the Supreme Court refused to allow her to have an abortion, a lower court judge ruled that Karsan could provide her with an abortion in Texas.
“We conclude that the Attorney General directly threatened to use law against Dr. Karsan in response to her stated intention to engage in what she claims is constitutionally protected activity. The letter from a representative of “the State threatening to enforce a specific law against a plaintiff seeking to evade such enforcement is sufficient evidence of a threat of enforcement to establish standing,” the court wrote in his opinion.
The lead plaintiff in the case, Amanda Zurawski, described in testimony last year that she suffered sepsis after doctors said they could not induce labor because her fetus still had a heartbeat .
Zurawski said she was told she had an incompetent cervix, premature dilation of her cervix and would miscarry. Her water broke later that evening, but she didn’t miscarry until three days later, she said.
“I went from feeling physically fine to shaking uncontrollably. I was freezing cold even though it was 110 degrees outside. My teeth were chattering violently. I couldn’t say a sentence. My husband Josh told me asked how I felt on a scale from 1 to 10. I didn’t know the difference between 1 and 10 – which was higher,” Zurawski said.
Responding to Friday’s decision, Zurawski said in a statement: “Every day, Texas people are told they have no options. This is sickening and wrong. Our courts should recognize all of our suffering and defend our fundamental rights to reproductive autonomy. We shouldn’t need to beg elected officials for our right to control our own bodies. »
ABC News
