Texas will continue enforcing bans on performing abortions even when pregnancies develop serious complications, following a decision issued Friday by the state Supreme Court.
The ruling means physicians must wait until patients are dangerously ill before terminating their pregnancies — in some cases resulting in otherwise preventable health complications. Under the law, learning that a fetus is unlikely to survive does not allow doctors to perform an abortion.
Under this case, known as Zurawski v. Texas, 20 women and two doctors sued the state of Texas, with many arguing that the state’s abortion laws endangered their lives. Some left the state for care. Others, including lead plaintiff Amanda Zurawski, had to wait until they contracted sepsis, a life-threatening infection, before they could receive an abortion. Some have been told they may struggle to become pregnant again as a result of medical complications they developed while waiting for an abortion.
The lawsuit, filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, did not seek to overturn Texas’ abortion bans; instead, plaintiffs wanted clarity from the state about when people facing dangerous pregnancy complications could receive abortions. Texas is the largest state in the country to have banned abortions. The Texas lawsuit also inspired comparable litigation in Tennessee and Idaho; both cases, also filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, are still ongoing.
The Texas court had previously ruled against Texas woman Kate Cox in a separate but similar case; by the time the court ruled in Cox’ case, she had already left the state to receive an abortion.
The Texas court’s decision means that the state’s heavily restrictive bans — which prohibit the procedure in almost all situations, without exceptions for rape or incest — will remain in effect, even in medically complex scenarios.
Doctors in Texas and across the country have said that even when states’ abortion bans offer exceptions to save the pregnant person’s life, the language on what qualifies is ambiguous at best. Without clear guidance, medical providers aren’t always able to provide abortions when they would normally be deemed medically appropriate — when, for instance, a pregnant patient has cancer and needs an abortion before commencing chemotherapy.
In Texas, violating the state ban is a felony and can be punished by life in prison and at least $100,000 in fines. Abortion providers can also be sued by private citizens for at least $10,000 under the state’s six-week abortion ban, which went into place before Roe v. Wade was overturned.
A state judge in Austin ruled last summer that while this case proceeded, the state could not deny patients access to abortions when their doctors deemed care appropriate to save their life or to prevent irreversible damage to their health. The judge also ruled that physicians could provide patients with abortions if they discovered fatal fetal anomalies.
But that ruling, issued as a temporary injunction, had little impact. Almost immediately, the state attorney general appealed the decision, using a procedural mechanism that blocked the injunction from taking effect. The state’s Supreme Court then blocked the lower court ruling.
The state has argued that the fault is not with Texas’ abortion laws. Rather, they argued, doctors have been given all the guidance they need under the state’s narrow exception language, and said that if patients feel they are not getting needed treatment, the fault is with physicians for being unwilling to make decisions about their health.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.