December 9, 2023

"The Texas Supreme Court late Friday temporarily halted a lower court order allowing a Dallas woman to obtain an abortion in spite of the state’s strict bans..."

"The [Texas] Supreme Court said that, 'without regard to the merits' of the arguments on either side, it had issued an administrative stay in the case, to give itself more time to issue a final ruling.... [The lower court] judge, a Democrat, found that Ms. Cox, 31... met the criteria for an exception to the state’s abortion bans. Her fetus was diagnosed with trisomy 18, a fatal condition in all but a small number of rare cases; Ms. Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant, had been to the emergency room several times for pain and discharge during her pregnancy.... No doctors or providers have been prosecuted for performing an abortion in Texas, and only a very small number of civil lawsuits have been filed under a 2021 state law, Senate Bill 8, that allowed for lawsuits against those who assist with abortions. In a few cases, doctors have gone forward with abortions after determining they were necessary and permitted under the law."

42 comments:

Birches said...

In a different state, I don't think she would have been delayed much more than here: these conditions are not usually found until ultrasounds. Because of the ER visits, she might have had earlier ultrasounds that led to the diagnosis but most practitioners would have been doing a bunch of follow up. I suppose we're supposed to be angry the state is between a woman and her doctors...well if the doctors would stop routinely exterminating healthy fetuses, this extra step wouldn't be necessary would it?

rhhardin said...

The Republicans are determined to lose the next election.

Hugh said...

I’m Pro-Life and hope that we would have at least laws in this country with early deadlines for abortion such as in Texas, as in most if not all European countries. Having said that, this sounds like it might well be one of the exceptions that justify a later abortion.

West TX Intermediate Crude said...

1. The resources the pregnant woman used to hire lawyers, and file an appeal, could have been used to travel to any of the multiple states that allow abortion on demand, with thousands of dollars left over to abort even more babies. The longer she delays, the more suffering she is imposing on herself. Unless this is performative.
2. The Texas law is overly strict, IMO- it's a bad law. Many people believe that that is enough for a court to render it void. That is not the function of a court. Appellate Courts exist to determine if reversible error has been committed, or if a law violates the relevant constitution. The solution to a bad law is to revise or repeal the law, legislatively.

Rich said...

Ultimately, it’s a gift to the pro-choice side. It provides concrete evidence of how and why “exemptions” in abortion laws never pan out for those needing them. The poor lady will need to travel to another state while there’s time. Ken Paxton’s letter should be in political ads.

stlcdr said...

Regardless of the law, isn’t there someone who files the case to be brought to the court? Who is putting this in front of the Texas Supreme Court?

n.n said...

Six weeks until baby meets the legal condition of granny in all 50 states. #NoJudgment #NoLabels

Thereafter, habits of humanity and medical ethics require saving the life of both the mother and child where each life is viable.

In all but the most liberal jurisdictions, a mother has time and method restrictions to abort her child.

n.n said...

if the doctors would stop routinely exterminating healthy fetuses, this extra step wouldn't be necessary would it?

No, it would not. The wicked solution is a strict demand of the progressive school that hopes to keep women affordable, available, and taxable, and the "burden" of evidence sequestered in darkness.

Joe Biden Is Corrupt said...

This is over-the top bad law. I agree with the lower court.
and RH.

Bob Boyd said...

Fundraising.

mikee said...

The abortion issue is enough to turn Texas blue in 2024. In making a limit of 6 weeks gestation for legal abortions, the Texas Legislature left the absolute minimum of time for women to obtain a legal abortion, rather than leaving it up to women to decide over the first two or three months of a pregnancy.

Then the media uniformly and loudly denounced this Texas law as a BAN ON ABORTION!. Not a time limit, a BAN!, with the capital letters and exclamation point always heard in any news reports. That this is a concerted effort on the part of the press seems obvious from its uniformity among reports on the Texas BAN! of abortion.

So kiss Republican control of Texas goodbye, and watch the Dems take the state in the 2023 presidency. Thanks, Republican religious zealots.

tommyesq said...

Stlcdr, texas law has a provision that permits citizens to file suit against doctors who perform an abortion. Civil suit,, $10k plus fees and costs at stake, apparently in this case also being allowed preemptively?

Keldonric said...

I do not understand the lack of empathy from the attorney general regarding the matter. With regards to this individual's ability to seek care elsewhere, why should the onus be placed on her? Then too, there was a statement made to the effect that the judge that made by him the TRO was “not medically qualified to make this determination.” Is this not true of the attorney general as well? There are probably a number a cases such as this that do not receive this sort of attention. I wonder what the response of the gentleman would be if a family member of his were in this situation. I saw a statement by Texas Right to Life referring to perinatal palliative care and have started to look into that strategy to see what it entails. There is just so much to take in here and it is sad that people have to go through a sort of nitpicking by others in these sorts of cases. I think I have a moderate understanding of the motivations of the third parties but why must there be that involvement after an individual has consulted with their physicians. What would a private conversation between these parties be like?

tl;dr: Sigh.

Hey Skipper said...

Presuming the fetus presents no unusual threat of bodily injury to the mother*, then there is a philosophical problem: in principle, aborting a fetus with a terminal disease is no different than mercy killings of anyone with a terminal disease.

Very few people would argue for the latter. So what makes the former OK?

*If it did, then a self-defense justification should be sufficient.

Keldonric said...

I made a comment earlier but I cannot see it and do not know if I should be able to see that it is awaiting approval. Here are the highlights.

1. I do not understand the lack of empathy displayed be the attorney general.
2. The onus should not be on the individual to seek medical care elsewhere.
3. Neither the judge nor the legislature or attorney general have the medical expertise to provide judgement on a course of action. The individual's physicians provide that judgment.
4. How would the people enforcing the law handle the situation if it impacted thier immediate family?

Michael K said...


Blogger rhhardin said...

The Republicans are determined to lose the next election.


Yup and this the reason. A 15 week law is defensible. The Democrats will still lie and call it a "ban" but it can be defended. This law cannot be.

narciso said...

they really have an unbridled love for moloch, don't they, the sacrifices must even be funded with tax payer dollars,

RigelDog said...

I really don't understand what's going on in Texas and the other states that are being unreasonable in both the drafting and application of their new laws restricting abortion.

I do agree with the statement of a prominent pro-choice woman (don't have the cite) wherein she places the blame for these very strict abortion laws on the position of the Democrats/pro-choice people over the last several decades. Their position has been extremist; they would refuse to even discuss any limitations on abortion, period, up to and including refusing to say whether a viable child "accidentally" born during an abortion procedure should be given due care---just as a real baby would be.

We could have achieved broad support for laws that limited elective abortions of healthy fetuses past twelve-fourteen weeks or so, but the Dems refused. They also refused to have a rational discussion, period. Instead they framed everything as a patriarchal conspiracy to enslave women.

n.n said...

Another handmade tale of disinformation, misinformation, malinformation to steer public perception. Time will tell if the progressive play will be a viable choice to steer public opinion. Bennies for babies, and all is well.

Paul said...

If she wants to abort, there are plenty of states she can drive to (and cost less than the lawyer she is using.)

narciso said...

its this same state leg, that tried to impeach paxton, so that tells you everything,

Aggie said...

Every one of these cases are paid political advertisements on behalf of the Democrats and against Republicans, who have stupidly put themselves into this position. Of course she could drive to another state. Obviously, women having sympathetic beliefs are selected because they make best test cases; they're expertly coached into being the best victims. Doesn't anybody remember the plaintive little-girl voice that Christine Blasey Ford used in her testimony? With a sympathetic media, the worst ham acting can be favorably displayed to score political points.

Republicans should know better, but apparently don't. Yes - they are likely to lose until they figure out how to win at politics.

RBE said...

The unborn child is not entitled to have a brief few moments or months of life and love outside the womb in the arms of the mother and father? Does this child not have a soul that needs nurturing for however long? Is it less of a tragedy to abort the child? What's wrong with people in such a hurry to rid themselves of a inconvenient child?

Chuck said...

stlcdr said...
Regardless of the law, isn’t there someone who files the case to be brought to the court? Who is putting this in front of the Texas Supreme Court?

The impeached, mulitpally-indicted and disgraced hyperpartisan Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, is doing it.


rhhardin said...
The Republicans are determined to lose the next election.

Curiously, it would seem to be so.


Bob Boyd said...
Fundraising.

rhhardin, meet Bob Boyd.


tommyesq said...
Stlcdr, texas law has a provision that permits citizens to file suit against doctors who perform an abortion. Civil suit,, $10k plus fees and costs at stake, apparently in this case also being allowed preemptively?

Yes! For now; pending further judicial review. And it will be a REALLY thorny one for the current SCOTUS. Let's remember the blue state legislatures who have been playing around with laws allowing private citizens to have a civil cause of action to enforce green new deal laws, gun rights restrictions, et cetera. Welcome to Texas, y'all.


Paul said...
If she wants to abort, there are plenty of states she can drive to (and cost less than the lawyer she is using.)

Probably true, but Mrs. Cox and her husband have articulated in multipe interviews exactly why they are pursuing a vindication of their rights in Texas. What they haven't said (but which I think they could say with some authority) is that their case is so alarming from a technical obstetrical standpoint, that there could hardly be a more compelling case for a late term abortion. And that their case facts expose the Texas anti-abortion extremists as demented. And the Texas law(s) as illegitimate by any mainstream reckoning.

n.n said...

So, do liberal sects deny women and men's dignity and agency? Do progressives ban abortion or leave it open season for all medical, social, or political "burdens"? Where is the fluidity? Why so strict? All's fair in lust and abortion? In peace and in Spring?

n.n said...

You have to give the pro-abortion zealots credit. After Biden... their failed effort to justify open abortion reason... season leveraging the rape... rape-rape of a child by an illegal alien, they have switched asses and progressed with a logical alternative. The moderate voice has indeed done a disservice for women, by advocating for the performance of human rites for social, clinical, political, and fair weather causes. The trans-parency (pun intended) is immediate and forward-looking.

Jerry said...

Blogger Paul said...
If she wants to abort, there are plenty of states she can drive to (and cost less than the lawyer she is using.)

12/9/23, 9:41 AM

Bingo. But it's not really about the abortion - it's about the ability to use it as a club in the upcoming elections.

The pendulum always swings - sometimes in unexpected directions. There's people who think that this will turn Texas blue - but if it doesn't? Is it that the people are so ignorant... or that they can decide for themselves what's morally correct by their own standards?

We live in an age where contraception of many different kinds is almost ridiculously easily available. There can be exemptions for things like rape or genetic defects - but that's not what we're talking about here.

Joe Smith said...

'If she wants to abort, there are plenty of states she can drive to (and cost less than the lawyer she is using.)'

I don't have the time to check, but I'd be pretty sure this is being bankrolled by a left-wing group...

Narayanan said...

could the Republicans who passed the law be D's in disguise?

n.n said...

The Republicans are determined to lose the next election

That's the apology that was presented to sustain slavery and diversity, and the 3/5 compromise to mitigate Democratic progress, now 1-2. But are the modern social, clinical, political, and faur weather causes an existential crisis for the forward-looking viability of the nation?

Birches said...

Guys, all of you saying Texas is going blue forget that Texas had abortion restrictions before Dobbs. Nothing happened.

Some people don't love abortion as much as you think.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

It’s unclear how this matter came to be in front of the “lower court judge” in the first place. If she has these medical issues has she attempted to get a medical abortion and been thwarted? The excerpt helpfully included a line about doctors performing other necessary procedures but I still don’t see why she is going to court. Maybe someone can extract that missing information from behind the Times’ paywall.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

After rereading the post and the comments it appears that the Texas SC still has the opportunity to resolve this reasonably. Not much agreement on here what constitutes “reasonable.”

tommyesq said...

My mistake - apparently the pregnant woman and a reproductive rights group sued the state, asking for a restraining order precluding prosecution should she have the abortion. The court granted a tro, and the supreme court put a hold on the issuance to give themselves time to receive briefing. So she has not (yet) been denied an abortion. I suspect this might hinge more on the language of the tro than an intention to preclude her, but time will tell.

mccullough said...

Bill Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffet can all fly her to a state where she can get this abortion. Pay for her to stay in a luxury hotel. Dance restaurants. Box seats to a show or game.

We all know this case is bullshit.

Jess said...

Texas law allows abortion in a medical emergency. From what I've read, the woman has had some problems, and there is a possibility the child will be born without a deadly defect, so where is the problem? Any physician can write the reason for the abortion explaining the necessity and no law is broken. Why hasn't this physician not submitted the paperwork?

rehajm said...

Yes, bad law but how fucking creepy is it the pair suffer just to enable a court challenge?

Mason G said...

"Bill Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffet can all fly her to a state where she can get this abortion. Pay for her to stay in a luxury hotel. Dance restaurants. Box seats to a show or game.

We all know this case is bullshit."


I’m like anybody else in the planet – I’m very moved by world hunger. I see the same commercials, those little kids, starving, and very depressed. And I watch these things on TV and I see those commercials and I look at it and I think, oh god how cruel, you know, to see a little kid out there – and I go, fuck, you know, the film crew could give this kid a sandwich.

You know that kid’s not out there uh… you know, filming a letter from home with a Betamax. Huh? You know there’s a director five feet away going, ‘Don’t feed him yet! Get that sandwich out of here, it doesn’t work unless he looks hungry!’ - Sam Kinison

JK Brown said...

If the abortion advocates cared about late term abortions, they would be helping this woman travel to a state where her abortion would be legal. But this is not about the woman or the fetus, this is politics.

n.n said...

Any physician can write the reason for the abortion explaining the necessity and no law is broken.

Yes, exactly. The legal issue is, and has always been, elective abortion or human rites.

Mark said...

Traveling to another state for an abortion has been made illegal by a county you would have to cross to get to New Mexico, so all this 'travel somewhere to get treatment' is a load of BS.

"…. two Texas counties and two Texas cities have passed local ordinances making it illegal to transport someone through one of these counties or cities for the purpose of obtaining an out-of-state abortion.


Notably, this list of anti-abortion localities includes Mitchell County, Texas, a sparse community of about 9,000 people. This matters because Interstate 20, the route that many people traveling from Dallas to New Mexico to receive an abortion will take, passes through Mitchell County. Several other counties with major highways or airports are also considering similar laws…”

Keldonric said...

Why should the individual have the responsibility to seek care in another state? It makes no sense.

The scant information I have seen made public seems to have her physicians having the opinion that carrying the pregnancy to term is not advisable. Does anyone think that the physicians' opinions are colored by their political leanings? May be she should have a certified pro-life doctor as part of her care team. I do not know.

The individual states the she wants another child. If she is impaired as a result of carrying to term or waiting for the possibility of a stillbirth, do people say 'Oh, that is too bad.'? Apparently 20 weeks is the line drawn where miscarriage ends and stillbirth begins.

Not to be snarky but more than a few comments have a tone of 'suck it up buttercup'. This individual is undergoing a terrible ordeal. After it is over for us and we move on to the next item in the blog, she and her family will still be living it.

This case hits a few strings for me because my wife's employer recently experienced a stillbirth. Sometimes terrible things occur. Do we need to pile on?