https://apnews.com/article/texas-abortion-roe-568c09dc8794c341095189362ece9004 AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A Texas judge on Thursday gave a pregnant woman whose fetus has a fatal diagnosis permission to get an abortion in an unprecedented challenge over bans that more than a dozen states have enacted since Roe v. Wade was overturned.
The lawsuit by Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two from the Dallas area, is believed to be the first time since the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that a woman has asked a court to approve an abortion. The order only applies to Cox and her attorneys afterward spoke cautiously about any wider impacts, calling it unfeasible that scores of other women seeking abortions would also now to turn to courts.
“This can’t be the new normal,” said Marc Hearron, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights. “I don’t think you can expect to see now hundreds of cases being filed on behalf of patients. It’s just not realistic.”
State District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble, an elected Democrat, granted a temporary restraining order allowing Cox to have an abortion under what are narrow exceptions to Texas’ ban. Her attorneys said they would not disclose what Cox was planning to do next, citing safety concerns.
Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose office argued that Cox does not meet the criteria for a medical exception, issued a statement that did not say whether the state would appeal. But in a letter to three Houston hospitals, Paxton warned that legal consequences were still possible if Cox’s physician provided the abortion.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant, attended the hearing via Zoom along with her husband but did not address the court. Doctors have told Cox that if the baby’s heartbeat were to stop, inducing labor would carry a risk of a uterine rupture because of her prior cesareans sections, and that another C-section at full term would would endanger her ability to carry another child. “The idea that Ms. Cox wants so desperately to be a parent and this law may have her lose that ability is shocking and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice,” Gamble said. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing Cox, has said this lawsuit is believed to be the first of its kind since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Since that landmark ruling, Texas and 12 other states rushed to ban abortion at nearly all stages of pregnancy. Opponents have sought to weaken those bans, including an ongoing Texas challenge over whether the state’s law is too restrictive for women with pregnancy complications. “I do not want to continue the pain and suffering that has plagued this pregnancy or continue to put my body or my mental health through the risks of continuing this pregnancy,” Cox wrote in an editorial published in The Dallas Morning News. “I do not want my baby to arrive in this world only to watch her suffer.” The temporary restraining order stops Texas from enforcing the state’s ban on Cox and lasts for 14 days. Under the restrictions in Texas, doctors who provide abortions could face criminal charges that carry a punishment of up to life in prison. They could also be fined. Pregnant women cannot be criminally charged for having an abortion in Texas.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Paxton told the Houston hospitals the order “will not insulate you” from civil and criminal liabilities, arguing that private citizens could still bring lawsuits and local prosecutors could still bring charges. Seth Chandler, a law professor at the University of Houston, said he would have concerns as a physician based on both legal issues and Paxton’s “apparent zeal” to enforce the state’s abortion ban. “If I were one of the doctors involved here, I would not sleep easy performing that abortion,” he said. Although Texas allows exceptions under the ban, doctors and women have argued that the requirements are so vaguely worded that physicians still won’t risk providing abortions, lest they end up facing criminal charges or lawsuits. State officials had asked Gamble to deny the request, arguing that Cox has not shown her life is in imminent danger and that she is therefore unable to qualify for an exception to the ban. The decision was handed down just two days after Cox filed the lawsuit. Cox learned she was pregnant for a third time in August and was told weeks later that her baby was at a high risk for a condition known as trisomy 18, which has a very high likelihood of miscarriage or stillbirth and low survival rates, according to the lawsuit. The termination of pregnancies because of fetal anomalies or other often-fatal medical problems is seldom discussed in national debates over abortion. There are no recent statistics on the frequency of terminations for fetal anomalies in the U.S. but experts say it’s a small percentage of total procedures. The lawsuit was filed a week after the Texas Supreme Court heard arguments about whether the ban is too restrictive for women with pregnancy complications. That case is among the biggest ongoing challenges to abortion bans in the U.S., although a ruling from the all-Republican court may not come for months.
Anonymous
>>1243434 the child has no chance of living why do you satanists want women to birth stillborns? fucking devils.
Anonymous
>>1243434 >Center for Reproductive Rights >Opposes reproduction How modern and newspeak-y.
Anonymous
>>1243571 It will live briefly while dying a slow painful death. They feed off of human suffering.
>>1243572 She literally risks being rendered incapable of having more children if she carries this pregnancy to term. In fact one of the reasons she wants an abortion is to protect her chance of being able to have kids in the future. She got pregnant intending to have kids in the first place. Seems like this is highly relevant to reproductive rights.
This is before addressing the fact that fundamentally having a right to do something means also having a right to no do it.
Anonymous
>>1243581 >In fact one of the reasons she wants an abortion is to protect her chance of being able to have kids in the future. OK sounds like it was already covered under the law since there was danger to her.
Why is this news? Why is this "landmark"?
Actually, don't answer either of those questions. Just fuck off.
Anonymous
>>1243583 >OK sounds like it was already covered under the law since there was danger to her. The AG is threatening to charge anyone that performs the operation for her.
This threat was issued after this ruling.
Also the state is appealing.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1243583 >OK sounds like it was already covered under the law since there was danger to her. The state doesn't view the dangers to her as being covered by the law.
>Actually, don't answer either of those questions. Just fuck off. You first
Anonymous
>>1243587 And Republicans will still push the lie that they aren't banning all abortions.
theonewimp dontdemonizeitsself
Quoted By:
>>1243581 >It will live briefly while dying a slow painful death. They feed off of human suffering. This!
I bet the Satanist Judge made a deal with the mother to allow the abortion only if the Satanist judge gets the fetus for their Satanic rites ceremony.
I've heard that they can keep the aborted fetus alive for days after the abortion, and that a living fetus, consumed alive by the coven, grants great powers to these sick fucks.
Of course this is pure hearsay, and the coven that I tried to join wouldn't let lac to-vegetarians in
Anonymous
>>1243589 They gotta boil the frog. They can't just go all christofacist all at once.
Anonymous
>Tfw lived long enough for death panels become real. Except run by republicans.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1243621 The NHS has had them for decades now.
Anonymous
>want the government to control and run healthcare with unlimited power to force medical procedures and drugs onto you and into your body, essentially rendering your body property of the state >get mad when you have to use the courts to let you do what you want with your body Sounds like leftists are just reaping what they've sewn. Easiest solution though- if she got a covid booster the pregnancy will simply self terminate.
Anonymous
>>1243642 Holy shit the levels of cope to blame liberals for conservatives taking away the right to bodily autonomy. Fuck all the way off.
Anonymous
>>1243652 >bodily autonomy This went out the window when liberals decided it was okay to ruin people's lives for not taking the Covid vaccine.
Reap what you sew. This is the government being in charge of healthcare just like you wanted.
Anonymous
>>1243657 Tell me how your life was ruined by the Covid shot…. That you were not forced to take by the government.
Anonymous
>>1243665 People were literally put into camps in certain countries for refusing the shot anon. See: Australia. Hundreds of thousands of people were forced out of their jobs for refusing to take it, and now those same industries are begging for those people back because they're so understaffed.
You faggots were calling for "reconciliation" after the vaxx passports and shot requirements went away because you realized you lifted the veil a little to far and exposed yourself as wannabee technocratic fascists.
That being said you don't care for examples because you'll simply deny everything inbetween crying that your own stance on the government having control over your body and your healthcare wasn't the pipe dream you thought it was going to be. The fact that you retards thought government run healthcare was going to mean free and unlimited medical treatments for any reason at any time for everyone, is laughable. It means you get nothing and if you don't like it, you can always just kill yourself.
Birth the sick baby, take the heart-killer shot, get in the euthanization pod citizen. Double plus ungood.
Anonymous
>>1243669 So you didn't have to take the shot, and you have to bitch about it with a bunch of unrelated horseshit.
Repeat after me, faggot:
>The government didn't force me to get a shot I didn't want >The government isn't responsible for corporations requiring the shot because of Republicunt policies allowing corps to fire anyone anytime >Australia doesn't matter when talking about US policy >I'm a slimy faggot who can't argue in good faith because I'm well aware all my arguments are bullshit Then go fuck yourself sideways and go back to r*ddit
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1243681 >want government run healthcare >want government to have control people's bodies >get what you want >cry and complain and blame others Have you considered suicide? I hear for you Canadians it's super easy.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1243681 >The government isn't responsible for corporations requiring the shot because of Republicunt policies Remember when Republicans tried to ban unvaccinated workers by making Covid part of OSHA requirements for all jobs?
Oh right, that was the Democrats and Ol' Sleepy Joe
Anonymous
Covid didn't kill enough retarded right wing schizos. Do better China.
Anonymous
>>1243700 >killed more leftists and blacks than right wingers >only people still testing positive for covid are vaxxies and leftists One more variant, two more boosters, we got him
Anonymous
>>1243701 >specifically killed the only black republican worth mentioning Calling them the Herman Cain awards never gets old
Anonymous
>>1243702 >literally wiped out black people in Dem cities' >muh herman cain durrr How can you tell if someone is vaccinated in 2023?
Easy, they're the only people still wearing masks
Anonymous
>>1243681 Don't you ever get tired of losing this argument? Biden illegally mandated vaccination under threat of financial ruin. This absolutely meets the definition of "force": coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.
>inb4 goalpost move Anonymous
>>1243597 Except they are, especially the ultra corrupt Texas AG.
Anonymous
>>1243705 Quit samefagging and address all of the posts BTFO'ing you
Anonymous
>>1243703 No ones wearing masks except those who really need it. And retards like you keep coming to work to spread your sickness regardless of covid because you are selfish faggots, so I don't blame people for wanting to protect themselves. You could care less, which is why no one likes you or your beliefs unless they are sociopaths.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1243707 >No ones wearing masks except vaxxies FTFY
>And retards like you keep coming to work to spread your sickness regardless of covid It used to be perfectly normal to have a mild cold and still be able to work. Now you can't cough in a public setting without some masked up vaxxoid chimping out at you.
Thank god you people fucked your lifespans with myocarditis and we wont have to deal with you for more than a few years.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1243706 NTA but he's right, no one believes you when the people making the claims aren't credible to start with.
Anonymous
>>1243704 > Biden illegally mandated vaccination under threat of financial ruin. Now this is some peak delusion right here.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1243718 /thread
Lying libtard fascists btfo
Anonymous
>>1243718 So what you're saying is the government didn't cause anyone to get fired for not taking the shot?
You're fucking over your own argument.
OP is an actual case of Government trying to take over healthcare and forcing someone to choose death, and you're fucking cheering it on.
Why are you so retarded?
Anonymous
>>1243741 >get BTFO >start crying how you didn't get BTFO >THE EVIL PLAN WASN'T REAL BECAUSE IT WAS THWARTED BEFORE WE COULD MAKE IT REAL, THAT MEANS IT NEVER WAS REAL >OP is an actual case of Government trying to take over healthcare and forcing someone to choose death Yes, and this what you people wanted. Now you have it and you want to cry how it's not fair. Too bad.
Anonymous
>>1243741 The illegal mandate was in effect for months before being declared unlawful. Holy fuck I know libtards are functionally unconscious but at least try to inform yourself on the subject before embarrassing yourself.
Anonymous
>>1243743 >>1243745 Wtf are you talking about? What mandate from the government? No one in the government made you get a shot. Please link evidence to your silly claims.
Anonymous
>>1243718 I like how you actively ignore the second sentence of this that says you don’t need to get the shot under the mandate
“or tests for COVID-19 on at least a weekly basis. ”
*sad trombone noise
Anonymous
>>1243750 executive order 14042 and osha rule requiring employers with 100+ employees to require vaccination. try to keep up, dum dum.
Anonymous
>>1243752 wow, either be forced to vaccinate or be forced to endure invasive testing on a weekly basis. great options to choose from. in either case, the biden admin used coercion and compulsion to force americans to take the vaccine.
Anonymous
>>1243763 >>1243767 Holy shit the goal post moving and willful ignorance of conservatives is crazy. All in defense of taking away rights from citizens to control their own bodies.
Yet getting tested for an infectious disease to stop you from killing your coworkers is the true evil government…
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1243767 >they made me put a cotton swab up my nose :( >So this woman has to die or be infertile. Thats just fair! What a bunch of pussies
Anonymous
>>1243775 >that never happened >OK it did happen but it was a good thing Every time.
My medical history is none of the government's business, disgusting boot licker.
Anonymous
>>1243777 Good to hear you're pro-abortion
Now you can turn away from Republicunt authoritarianism and retardation
Anonymous
>>1243784 >everyone who opposes government overreach is a republican Did you realize you were exposing your own leftist hypocrisy with your retarded whataboutism or nah?
Anonymous
>>1243790 Protip: If you're gonna deny an accusation, actually deny it, instead of bitching that the accusation was (accurately) made.
Anonymous
>>1243790 4chan is an American website.
Anonymous
>>1243790 >so dumb he thought this was a smart post this is a textbook example of self-btfo
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1243795 >>1243796 >>1243797 Nerve: struck
Bootlickers: seething
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1243796 not since hiroshimoot
Anonymous
>>1243434 >Google are multiple c sections dangerous? >The risk of uterine rupture for people who have had more than one C-section is between 0.9% and 3.7%. Seems like the risk is pretty negligible and certainly not life threatening.
Anonymous
>>1243844 Thanks Dr. 4chan! We'll take your amateur medical assessment of a person you've never met under advisement.
Anonymous
>>1243849 Tell me why it deserves an exemption.
Anonymous
>>1243863 I never made any prescription at all. You're arguing with a strawman. Unlike you I don't pretend to be an expert on things I clearly know nothing about. I have no clue if the exemption is warranted. I'm not a lawyer nor a doctor. That being said, intuitively, I and argue that there should be some viable option other than forcing a woman to give birth to a dead baby that might kill her or end her ability to procreate. Of all the outcomes presented in this story that seems like the worst one.
Anonymous
>>1243875 >Unlike you I don't pretend to be an expert on things I clearly know nothing about. >That being said, intuitively, I and argue that there should be some viable option other than forcing a woman to give birth to a dead baby that might kill her or end her ability to procreate. Why insist that I can't have an opinion if I'm not a medical professional and yet here you are positing hypothetical bullshit that isn't relevant. What are the chances she'll be rendered infertile by a C-section instead of an abortion, and where's your source, faggot?
Anonymous
>>1243876 >Why insist that I can't have an opinion if I'm not a medical professional You can have an opinion. Your opinion is just based on nothing. Its just your feelings and has no basis in medical fact. "This woman's medical risk is negligible and this condition is not life threatening to her" is a medical analysis. You have zero training or authority to make claims about people's medical risks. You have no clue what you're talking about.
>here you are positing hypothetical bullshit that isn't relevant The risk of her dying and/or becoming infertile is directly relevant to the case, anon. That is what the entire principal of the exemption is based on. If there were no risk then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. All risk is hypothetical you moron.
>What are the chances she'll be rendered infertile by a C-section instead of an abortion I have no fucking clue. I'm not a doctor and even if I was I know absolutely nothing about her medical history. The only one talking out of their ass about a topic they know nothing about here is you.
>and where's your source, faggot? Source for what? You're the only one making any definitive claims here.
Anonymous
>>1243878 >Don't need a source, I've got my asshole Didn't read, don't care.
Anonymous
>>1243886 A source for what? I've made zero claims. Are you having a stroke?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1243887 nta but you just got dunked on. daymmmmmmm
Anonymous
>>1243844 >3.7%. that's 1 in 26. so when this has happened 26 times, its likely that at least 1 will suffer that fate. why should this woman be forced by the state to take that risk to deliver what is either a dead baby or a dying and suffering baby? why is Paxton hellbent on increasing suffering in the world regardless of nuance?
Anonymous
>>1243890 That's the high end of the estimate. I assume as doctors get better at delivering babies again instead of dissecting them inside the womb those numbers would naturally go down.
Anonymous
>>1243890 Man I've seen some stuff, but "There's only a 96-99% success rate!!!" is a new one to me.
Nice spin attempt though.
Anonymous
>>1243893 The estimate is also irrelevant to individual medical cases. If 1/4 people die from a certain kind of cancer that doesn't mean every single person who gets that cancer has a 1/4 chance to live. Depending on the individual case the prognosis could be terminal or completely curable. Without direct knowledge of this individual's medical history and pathology there is zero accurate way to determine what her medical risks are.
Anonymous
>>1243897 >Let me spout off more irrelevant shit that I got directly from my asshole Where's your source again? Oh, right.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1243905 >I have no argument >I'm just gonna keep screaming "source!" over and over so nobody notices I'm fucking retarded Good luck, anon.
Anonymous
The one thing I'll never understand about the anti abortion activists is that most kids grow up like their parents. If a woman is trying to get an abortion whatever she's shitting out is probably gonna be voting dem for 60 years, you should want to kill it.
Anonymous
>>1243986 The entire abortion discussion is a red herrings to distract from other crimes and corruptions of the government. It works perfectly. Both republitards and democucks get spun up and nobody is aware about how they're getting fucked by the politicians.
Anonymous
>>1243987 >YOU CAN ONLY DO ONE THING AT A TIMEEE!!! OK.
Anonymous
>>1243996 Single issue voters are literally that.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1244012 Most single issue voters are literal homosexuals voting for homosexuality.
Anonymous
>>1243895 >>1243893 >>1243897 why do you want her to deliver a dead or dying and suffering baby so bad? theres no ethical view to support it
Anonymous
>>1244065 What's stopping her from getting an abortion in California?
Anonymous
>>1244072 >What's stopping her from getting an abortion in California? Time, cost, dangers of long distance travel for pregnant women, the fact that she shouldn't have to?
You shouldn't need to leave your state for basic medical services or a heated house unless you're living in a failed dystopia.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1244072 Texas law will still charge you with getting an abortion out of state, along with anyone helping you do so, i.e. helping with transport. with this ruling, she probably could go out of state in this one instance, though it seems likely to get appealed, and like
>>1244090 said, she shouldnt have to. why are Republicans incapable of any nuance? this shouldnt have had to go to trial in the first place, and Paxton shouldnt be trying to undermine the ruling by threatening doctors and hospitals with litigation
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1244090 So how much is she spending on fighting this in court instead?
Doesn't seem like cost is the issue at hand.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1243434 Watch this Coxsucker become the face of "reproductive rights" in Texas. I fucking hate the Left who find these .001% cases and use them to justify the murder mills of women killing babies to keep slutting it up.