1). “Missouri bill could make IUDs & emergency contraception 'murder' ”, Dec 8, 2023, Jessica Valenti, Abortion, Every Day, at < https://jessica.substack.com/
2). “Judge says Texas woman may abort fetus with lethal abnormality: Kate Cox, 31, at 20 weeks pregnant, has learned her fetus has a lethal abnormality that is almost always fatal at birth”, Dec. 7, 2023, Eleanor Klibanoff & Neelam Bohra, The Texas Tribune, at < https://www.texastribune.org/
3). “Texas Threatens Doctors After Judge Says Woman Can Get Emergency Abortion: After a judge tearfully granted permission for an abortion, Ken Paxton threatened 'anyone' who would aid the 20-week-pregnant mother of two”, Dec. 7, 2023, Tessa Stuart, Rolling Stone, at < https://www.rollingstone.com/
4). “Texas Supreme Court temporarily halts order that allowed pregnant woman to have abortion”, Dec 8, 2023, Updated Dec 9, 2023, Maegan Vazquez, Washington Post, at < https://www.washingtonpost.
5). “Texas Supreme Court Blocks Woman With Life-Threatening Pregnancy From Emergency Abortion: Kate Cox, whose fetus was diagnosed with a fatal condition, had previously been granted permission for an abortion”, Dec 9, 2023, Charisma Madarang, Rolling Stone, at < https://www.rollingstone.com/
6). “As abortion rights amendment takes place in Ohio Constitution, advocates look to future”, Dec 8, 2023, Susan Tebben, Ohio Capital Journal, at < https://ohiocapitaljournal.
7). “Missouri Republicans propose bills to allow murder charges for people who get abortions”, Dec 8, 2023, Kacen Bayless, Kansas City Star, < https://www.kansascity.com/
8). “GOP Senate candidates soften their abortion stances amid a post-Roe losing streak: In key 2024 battleground states, some Republican Senate hopefuls have quietly shifted elements of their abortion positions”, Dec. 9, 2023, Adam Edelman, NBC News, at < https://www.nbcnews.com/
~~ recommended by dmorista ~~
Introduction by dmorista:
The fact that now 7 states have voted, mostly with about a 58% to 42% margin, to affirm abortion rights, or to prevent right-wing attempts at roll backs of Reproductive Healthcare Rights, is undeniable and is making some parts of the forced-birth movement rethink their tactics; but never their basic position. Jessica Valenti, as ususal, has published a series of reports in Abortion-Every-Day that look at the ongoing struggle between people who want to exercise their personal freedom and utilize standard Reproductive Healthcare measures, including abortion. She takes an overall look, with useful links in Item 1). “Missouri bill could make ….” at the current situation as concerns Reproductive Healthcare.
The State of Texas, as the leader of right-wing attempts to push U.S. society back into the Dark Ages, does not have a ballot proposal system in which grass-roots citizens are able to express their anger and disagreement with the ruling political operatives. None-the-less Texas Women are actively challenging the harsh and vague rules implemented by the antediluvians who control the State Government. In addition to the case with 20 women, who were greivously harmed and forced to suffer horrific pain and physical sickness due to Texas' extremist hard-nosed abortion ban, and 2 gynecologists who joined the lawsuit; there is another woman Kate Cox, 31, of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, who petitioned the Courts of Texas for permission to obtain an abortion in Texas. Her fetus has been diagnosed with a nearly 100% fatal genetic defect and her personal health (she has already had a couple of C-Sections and has other health problems) make it imperative that she obtain a safe therapuetic abortion to ensure her well-being, and enable her to continue to care for her two living children.
In Item 2)., “Judge says Texas woman may abort fetus with lethal abnormality: ….”, reports that the Medieval political operatives of Texas opposed her petition with a hypocritical litany of reasons why she should be forced to carry the doomed fetus to term; the supposedly sacred life of this fetus would at best last for only a few minutes, and most likely it would die before delivery and “enter the world” still born. But “.... Jonathan Stone, a lawyer for the Texas Office of the Attorney General, argued that Cox 'does not meet all of the elements' to qualify for a medical exemption from the abortion bans”. However: “Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble handed down the temporary restraining order Thursday, (Dec 7, dm) ….” that gave Ms Cox permission to obtain an abortion. The antediluvian tin-pot dictator, Texas Attorney General, immediately threatened any physician or hospital that provided such healthcare to Ms Cox. Item 3)., “Texas Threatens Doctors After Judge Says ….” notes that:
“Texas attorney general Ken Paxton wasted no time threatening anyone who would aid Cox in obtaining an abortion.
“ 'The temporary restraining order granted by the Travis County district judge purporting to allow an abortion to proceed will not insulate hospitals, doctors or anyone else from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws,' Paxton said in a statement shortly after the judge’s decision. 'This includes first degree felony prosecutions…and civil penalties of not less than $100,000 for each violation.' (Emphasis added)
“Paxton added, ominously: 'The [judge’s temporary restraining order] will expire long before the statute of limitations for violating Texas’ abortion laws expires.' ”
The final, for now, wrinkle in this legal battle occurred the next day, December 8, as Ken Paxton's minions appealed the ruling by Judge Maya Guerra Gamble; is the ruling that “temporarily” halts Ms Cox from obtaining an abortion. This was reported in Item 4)., “Texas Supreme Court temporarily halts order ….”, and Item 5)., “Texas Supreme Court Blocks Woman With Life-Threatening Pregnancy ….”. So, at this point Ms Cox is blocked from obtaining a desperately needed abortion, in a timely manner, in Texas. The Texas Supreme Court did note that it needs to make a final ruling quickly.
In states that have passed Abortion Rights Amendments to their State Consitutions, like Ohio, or are endeavoring to do so like Missouri, the struggle against grass-roots democracy by the Theocrats, the Right-wing Churches, and the far-right Oligarchs is extremely fierce and centers on, either using various procecural methods to frustrate initiatives like Ohio's Proposal One that placed the right to abortion and other Reproductive Healthcare in the state's constitution, or denying the population to get a chance to even get vote on this vital issue. Item 6)., “As abortion rights amendment takes place in Ohio ….”, enumerates the various ways that the Forced-birth operatives are attempting to derail the clear will of the voting public. These actions include: “Within hours of the November vote, Republican Senate President Matt Huffman told reporters it was the 'beginning of a revolving door of ballot campaigns to repeal or replace' it, perhaps with another amendment that would implement a 15-week abortion ban. Then, far-right state Rep. Jennifer Gross, who represents an exurban district outside Cincinnati, announced an effort to strip the judiciary of its jurisdiction over the abortion amendment as an end-run around courts inclined to uphold the state constitution.”
The article also notes that: “Jessie Hill, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland who is a cooperating attorney with ACLU Ohio on reproductive rights cases, said that she expects that the GOP legislature will continue to pursue legislation like the transfer agreement law that would curb access even as abortion itself remains legal.
“ 'I think the lesson is that people need to keep paying attention to what the legislature is doing to restrict abortion access because not everything is going to be a big, flashy proposal,' Hill said.”
Missouri, in addition to numerous attempts to derail any proposal for a statewide Consitutional Amendment (that included among many other deceptive stratagems, a fraudulent claim to be placed along with the proposal on the Ballot, that the proposal to guarantee Abortion and Reproductive Healthcare rights would cost the state the absurd figure of $51 Billion, when the real figure was $51 Thousand).
Item 7)., “Missouri Republicans propose bills to allow murder charges ….” points out that: “Missouri Republican lawmakers are pushing a pair of bills that would allow for women to be charged with murder for getting an abortion in the state. The pieces of legislation would give fetuses the same rights as human beings, which would allow for criminal charges to be filed against anyone who gets an abortion, helps someone get an abortion or provides abortion care in the state, which implemented a near-total ban on the procedure after last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling. …. (Emphasis added)
“The bills, both called the 'Abolition of Abortion in Missouri Act,' do not state explicitly whether getting an abortion in another state would be illegal.”
The states where there are attempts to bring referenda to strengthen abortion and reproductive healthcare to the public for a vote include (in addition to Missouri): Nebraska, South Dakota, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Maryland, New York and Colorado. Stiff and often illegal measures to frustrate these initiatives have been used in Nebaska, South Dakota, Florida, and Missouri. A member of the Arizona Supreme Court, finally recused himself from ruling on an abortion rights related case; he was a forced-birth activist and had fraudulently used some records from a Planned Parenthood location to try to prove some sort of wrong-doing (he failed in that endeavor)
Finally Item 8). “GOP Senate candidates soften their abortion stances ….”, discusses the hiding and obfuscating of GOP senatorial candidates in 5 states where they are worried about the effects of what they really think and want to do. These 5 states are Arizona, Ohio, Nevada, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and the roster includes 1 reactionary senatorial hopeful each in Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania; with 3 each in Michigan and Ohio. Of course all these senatorial candidates, who are now trying to pose as “Abortion Moderates”, have documented histories of supporting extremist forced-birth positions and have buddied up to the whole forced-birth movements. Their potential opponents, among the Democrats, certainly have extensive collections of film clips of these right-wingers spouting off and espousing their intolerant social control viewpoints.
xxxxx
Abortion, Every Day (12.8.23)
Click to skip ahead in the newsletter: In Criminalizing Care, Missouri legislation would allow women to be charged with murder if they had an abortion—or even used the morning after pill. In the States, a Kentucky woman who wants an abortion is suing the state, and Ken Paxton is still trying to stop Kate Cox from obtaining care in Texas. A few quick hits in Stats & Studies. And In the Nation, Graces writes about the latest on the mifepristone case, and Dems push back on abortion misinformation on social media.
Criminalizing Care
Missouri Republican lawmakers want to make charge abortion patients with murder. As I said on TikTok earlier today, at least they’re being honest! The Kansas City Star reports that Sen. Mike Moon and Rep. Bob Titus have both pre-filed bills called the “Abolition of Abortion in Missouri Act,” that would treat fetuses as full citizens.
Rep. Titus told The Kansas City Star, “if you’re going to treat babies as humans and people then the penalties for taking an innocent life should be commensurate with that.” The newspaper also points out that Sen. Moon is known for making comments earlier this year suggesting that 12 year-olds should be able to get married. So, charmers all around.
This legislation is part of the anti-abortion movement’s campaign for “equal protection” that I’ve written about before. A few important things to remember: Other Missouri Republicans are going to come out and claim that these legislators are extremists who are on the margins of the party and anti-abortion movement. That’s just not true. We’ve seen bills like this in multiple states, like Iowa, Georgia and South Carolina.
The other vital thing to know about this bill (and others like it) is that it defines personhood as beginning at fertilization. That means that conservatives who believe that IUDs and emergency contraception stop the implantation of a fertilized egg could argue that a woman who uses those forms of birth control should be arrested for murder. The bills could also criminalize anyone who has a miscarriage, if a zealous prosecutor decides that the pregnant person ‘caused’ it in some way.
In more criminalization news, St. Louis Dispatch columnist Aisha Sultan wrote about the woman charged for her miscarriage in Ohio. Sultan spoke to Pregnancy Justice and If/When/How about how Brittany Watts’ case isn’t all that unusual—and the absolute cruelty behind the charges:
“Where did these prosecutors expect Watts to deliver when she was sent home from the hospital after her water broke? Did they expect her to sift through the blood-filled toilet and collect the remains of her stillborn child in the aftermath of the trauma she just endured? It seems inconceivable that instead of having compassion, they chose to charge her with a crime.”
The other thing that Sultan points out that’s important—and something that’s going to become an even bigger issue post-Roe—is that there’s no set “rule” for how you’re supposed to dispose of fetal remains when you lose a pregnancy. Pregnancy Justice points out that they’re found cases where women have been prosecuted after burying the remains, or even bringing them into the hospital. In other words: for many women, there’s nothing that they can do that will protect them from investigations.
What’s also scary is that the more we see cases like Watts’, the more women will be too afraid to seek out care at all. And who can blame them?
In the States
A pregnant woman in Kentucky filed a suit today against the state, arguing that that the state’s abortion ban violates her right to “privacy and self-determination” as protected in the Kentucky constitution.
Jane Doe is 8 weeks pregnant and wants an abortion, but can’t have one because of Kentucky’s total abortion ban. Doe—suing along with Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaiʻi, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky and represented by the ACLU of Kentucky—is also seeking class action status, so that other people in the state who want abortions can join the suit.
What I really appreciate about this case is that they are going for it—they’re challenging the entirety of the ban, not just seeking to modify it or add exceptions. Not that there’s anything wrong with lawsuits seeking a more modest goal, like the one in Texas. They’re all important! But it’s invigorating to read a suit laying out the horror of forcing someone into childbirth for any reason:
“Bans and the irreparable harms they inflict are an affront to the health and dignity of all Kentuckians. The inability to access abortion in the Commonwealth forcibly imposes the health risks and physical burdens of continued pregnancy on all Kentuckians who would otherwise choose to access safe and legal abortion.
For many individuals, the Bans altogether foreclose the ability to access abortion, thus forcing them to carry their pregnancies to term and give birth, which carries a risk of death up to fourteen times higher than that associated with abortion. These individuals will be made to suffer the life-altering physical, emotional, and economic consequences of unexpected pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting.”
In a release from the ACLU of Kentucky, Doe says, “This is my decision—not the government’s or any other person’s.” The office of Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron says they’re reviewing the case. I’ll keep you updated as I find out more.
Meanwhile, the cruelty continues on in Texas, where Attorney General Ken Paxton has asked the state Supreme Court to reverse a judge’s decision allowing Kate Cox to have an abortion. As you likely know by now, Cox’s pregnancy was diagnosed with a fatal condition and—understandably—doesn’t want to be forced to carry a doomed pregnancy to term. Paxton, however, doesn’t give a shit what she wants.
In an overnight filing, Paxton’s office argued that, “each hour [the emergency order] remains in place is an hour that Plaintiffs believe themselves free to perform and procure an elective abortion.” Please note the word ‘elective’ there, a way to really drive home the idea that Cox is making some sort of willy nilly decision.
This filing to the state Supreme Court came just hours after Paxton sent a letter to three hospitals in Houston, threatening them with criminal charges if they provide or assist in giving Cox an abortion.
Marc Hearron, of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said that Paxton was “misrepresenting the court’s order.”
“He attacks the judge who rules against him as an ‘activist judge’. He is trying to bulldoze the legal system to make sure Kate and pregnant women like her continue to suffer.”
Related: NowThis News has video of the moment that the judge told Cox she’d be signing the emergency order, which absolutely made me burst into tears.
While Republicans in Missouri try to pass legislation to make abortion punishable as a homicide, pro-choice activists are trying to get an abortion rights ballot measure in front of voters in 2024. St. Louis Public Radio has a piece this week looking at how that campaign is going: in a word, “tortuous.” (For background on how Republicans held up the democratic process in Missouri for months, click here.)
In other ballot measure news, Axios has a piece on the effort in Montana to protect abortion rights in the state constitution—in part as as protection against the Republican governor’s constant attacks on abortion. Also interesting: Apparently the new pro-choice group launched by Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker may make “a financial and strategic investment” in the state effort. Pritzker and Think Big America have already donated millions to the ballot measure campaigns in Ohio and Nevada.
Speaking of Ohio: Issue 1 is now in effect, which means abortion rights are protected in the state constitution. But anti-choice laws still have to be repealed one-by-one through the courts—which means that doctors aren’t feeling comfortable quite yet. OBGYN Dr. Jeanne Corwin told the Statehouse News Bureau that there hasn’t been any clear guidance to doctors. “We don’t want to become felons, end up in jail or lose our medical license so we will continue to follow all of the rules and laws that we have always followed,” she said.
One of the big reasons they’re not willing to take any risks? One of the leaders on the Ohio State Medical Board is none other than Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life. So essentially, abortion is protected but doctors know that their livelihoods still depend on the whims of an anti-choice maniac.
If you missed yesterday’s newsletter, I went over the legal brief filed by anti-abortion activists trying to convince the state Supreme Court that the amendment should be repealed. Definitely make sure to check it out.
Also in Ohio: The 19th also looks at how Republicans in the state have tried to stymie the democratic process; and the Ohio Capital Journal reports what abortion rights advocates in the state are planning to do next.
xxxxxx
Judge says Texas woman may abort fetus with lethal abnormality
Kate Cox, 31, at 20 weeks pregnant, has learned her fetus has a lethal abnormality that is almost always fatal at birth.
:quality(75)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/38282cde3878e6edd53b4eae0e651253/Kate%20Cox%20TT%2001.jpg)
Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
For the first time in at least 50 years, a judge has intervened to allow an adult woman to terminate her pregnancy.
When Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble handed down the temporary restraining order Thursday, Kate Cox, 31, of Dallas burst into tears. Cox and her husband desperately wanted to have this baby, but her doctors said continuing the nonviable pregnancy posed a risk to her health and future fertility, according to a historic lawsuit filed Tuesday.
“The idea that Ms. 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,” Gamble said.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton responded Thursday afternoon in a letter addressed to three hospitals — Houston Methodist Hospital, The Women's Hospital of Texas in Houston, and Texans Children's Hospital in Houston — saying the temporary order would "not insulate hospitals, doctors, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws."
The Texas Office of the Attorney General, which challenged Cox’s claims at Thursday’s hearing, may try to ask a higher court to intervene but had not as of Thursday afternoon.
At 20 weeks pregnant, Cox learned her fetus had full trisomy 18, a chromosomal abnormality that is almost always fatal before birth or soon after. Before the overturn of Roe v. Wade, Texas law allowed doctors to terminate pregnancies due to lethal fetal anomalies at any point during the pregnancy. But now, Cox’s doctors said their hands were tied by Texas’ abortion laws, which prohibit abortion except to save the life of the pregnant patient.
A week after she first received the diagnosis, Cox and her husband, represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, filed a lawsuit asking a judge to grant a temporary restraining order, allowing them to terminate this pregnancy.
“It is not a matter of if I will have to say goodbye to my baby, but when,” Cox said in a statement. “I’m trying to do what is best for my baby and myself, but the state of Texas is making us both suffer.”
At the hearing, Jonathan Stone, a lawyer for the Texas Office of the Attorney General, argued that Cox “does not meet all of the elements” to qualify for a medical exemption from the abortion bans, at least based on what was filed by her lawyers. Granting a temporary restraining order would require “changing the medical exemption in Texas and then saying that the plaintiffs meet this changed newly rewritten standard,” Stone said.
Stone also argued that the temporary restraining order would have permanent consequences, in the form of an abortion.
“The harm to Ms. Cox’s life, health and fertility are very much also permanent and cannot be undone,” countered Molly Duane, senior counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights. Duane said Cox’s condition was “rapidly deteriorating every day,” and since the lawsuit was filed on Tuesday, she had already made a trip to the emergency room due to medical complications from her pregnancy. She's gone to the ER four times in the last month, Duane said.
In a filing late last night, the state tried to argue that Cox was actually “currently residing in sunny Saint Lucie County, Florida,” where, “ironically and particularly relevant to this cause of action,” she would qualify for an abortion under that state’s medical exemptions. Duane told the judge Cox had not left Dallas in months: she had just used an online notary service, based in Florida, to sign the legal filings.
After a 45-minute Zoom hearing Thursday, Gamble ruled that Cox should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy, and that Dr. Damla Karsan, a Houston OB/GYN, should be protected from civil and criminal penalties if she performs the procedure.
In his letter to hospitals, which also served as a response to the hearing, Paxton said Dr. Karsan "failed to follow" hospital procedures for "determining whether Ms. Cox qualifies for the medical exception to Texas abortion laws." He also said both the temporary restraining order and the lawsuit failed to "establish that Ms. Cox qualifies for the medical exception to Texas' abortion laws."
It's uncertain whether this is true and hospitals definitely have some legal risk, but Paxton is "overstating his case," said Charles “Rocky” Rhodes, a law professor at South Texas College of Law.
"This is an unresolved issue," Rhodes said. "There's just too many uncertainties for me to say who's going to 'win,' and who's going to 'lose.' I can't say the hospitals have a 100% guarantee that there won't be any kind of retroactive liability against them.".
Another district judge, Jessica Mangrum, previously ruled that the state’s abortion bans should not apply to people with complicated pregnancies, including those facing lethal fetal diagnoses. The state appealed that ruling, putting it on hold; the case is before the Texas Supreme Court.
The state cannot directly appeal Thursday’s order, since it is a temporary restraining order. Instead, the Office of the Attorney General would have to file a writ of mandamus petition, asking a higher court to take the extraordinary measure of overturning the emergency order.
“For mandamus relief, you're supposed to go to the Court of Appeals first, and then to the Texas Supreme Court,” Rhodes said. “But the Texas Supreme Court has recognized a somewhat flexible standard, that if there's not enough time, you can go straight to them.”
Joanna Grossman, a law professor at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law, said she was surprised Paxton didn't immediately try to kick the order up to the Texas Supreme Court because he often does appeal orders related to abortion. At the same time, she said it made sense to not have it in front of the court at the same time as the Zurawski v. Texas case, the lawsuit filed earlier this year in which 20 women and two doctors are challenging Texas’ abortion laws with regards to complicated pregnancies.
"This case provides a good template [for other women] in both the idea but also the documents. If the TRO stands, we have a model for what can work. Then, that's easy to scale up to give it to lawyers in different counties," Grossman said.
"Unless he [Paxton] files a writ and the Texas Supreme Court says something broad that would make this not work again," she added, "I expect we would see all kinds of lawsuits like this."
Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion advocacy group, condemned the lawsuit as a gateway to allowing abortions for any reason in Texas.
“Every child is uniquely precious and should continue to be protected in law no matter how long or short the baby’s life may be,” the group said in a statement. “The compassionate approach to these heartbreaking diagnoses is perinatal palliative care, which honors, rather than ends, the child’s life.”
Since the state banned nearly all abortions after the overturn of Roe v. Wade in June 2022, more and more women have come forward with stories of much-wanted pregnancies gone awry, and the ways the state’s abortion ban worsened their situation.
In October, The Texas Tribune documented the experiences of an East Texas woman who was forced to carry a nonviable pregnancy to term. Her twin sons, born conjoined with severe malformations, died just hours after they were born.
Neelam Bohra is a 2023-24 New York Times disability reporting fellow, based at The Texas Tribune through a partnership with The New York Times and the National Center on Disability and Journalism, which is based at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University.
Southern Methodist University has have been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
xxxxxxxx
Texas Threatens Doctors After Judge Says Woman Can Get Emergency Abortion
Last week, Kate Cox, 20 weeks pregnant and a mother of two, received the worst news a person can get: her baby had a fatal condition known as Trisomy 18. The baby has no chance of survival, but under Texas law, there are only two options available to Cox: a vaginal delivery, or a C-section. Either option would risk her life or her ability to have children in the future.
Because of her two prior C-sections, Cox’s doctors advised her she is at a high risk for a uterine rupture if she has an induced labor; if she had a third C-section, it would increase the chances that she is unable to carry a future pregnancy to term. On Tuesday, Cox’s lawyers filed an emergency lawsuit, asking the court to temporarily block the state’s bans so Cox could obtain an abortion.
Travis County Judge Maya Guerra Gamble heard from both Cox’s lawyers and the state of Texas — whose lawyer argued that Cox didn’t meet the threshold for a medical exception to the state’s multiple abortion bans — earlier this week. The case marks the first time a woman has asked a judge to approve an emergency abortion since the Supreme Court struck down the federal right to abortion last year.
On Thursday, Judge Gamble reportedly teared up as she read her opinion from the bench: “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.” She granted the temporary restraining order, clearing a path for Cox to obtain an emergency abortion.
Cox, Gamble wrote in her opinion, “has already been to three emergency rooms with severe cramping, diarrhea, and leaking unidentifiable fluid. If she is forced to continue this pregnancy, Ms. Cox is at a particularly high risk for gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, fetal macrosomia, post-operative infections, anesthesia complications, uterine rupture, and hysterectomy, due to her two prior C-sections and underlying health conditions.”
Texas attorney general Ken Paxton wasted no time threatening anyone who would aid Cox in obtaining an abortion.
“The temporary restraining order granted by the Travis County district judge purporting to allow an abortion to proceed will not insulate hospitals, doctors or anyone else from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws,” Paxton said in a statement shortly after the judge’s decision. “This includes first degree felony prosecutions…and civil penalties of not less than $100,000 for each violation.
Paxton added, ominously: “The [judge’s temporary restraining order] will expire long before the statute of limitations for violating Texas’ abortion laws expires.”
xxxxxxxxx
Abortion update, Dec 9, 2023
Texas Supreme Court temporarily halts order that allowed pregnant woman to have abortion, Updated December 9, 2023 at 12:33 a.m. EST, Published December 8, 2023 at 11:49 p.m. EST, Maegan Vazquez, Washington Post, at <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/08/texas-abortion-ruling-kate-cox-supreme-court/>
{Caption: Kate Cox, 31, has taken legal action seeking an emergency abortion in Texas after learning that her fetus has a fatal genetic condition. (Kate Cox/AP) }
5–6 minutes
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday temporarily halted an order allowing a woman who is 20 weeks pregnant to get an abortion — reversing a lower-court ruling that marks the first case of a pregnant woman seeking a court order for the procedure since Roe v. Wade was overturned last year.
The order was issued Friday night.
The case involves Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two from the Dallas area, who asked the nonprofit Center for Reproductive Rights for legal help in obtaining an emergency abortion in Texas after she learned last week that her fetus had Trisomy 18, also called Edwards syndrome. The genetic condition is one “that cannot sustain life,” as Cox wrote in an op-ed Wednesday in the Dallas Morning News. Almost all such pregnancies end in miscarriage or stillbirth, according to the Cleveland Clinic. Babies who do survive often die prematurely.
Cox’s doctor warned that carrying the pregnancy to term could jeopardize her health and future fertility, including uterine rupture and hysterectomy, according to the lawsuit filed on her behalf.
On Thursday, Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble, an elected Democrat, granted a temporary restraining order that would allow Cox to have an abortion under the narrow exceptions to the state’s ban. But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) asked the Supreme Court of Texas to intervene to block Cox from obtaining an abortion.
The Center for Reproductive Rights responded on Friday in a court filing that the request is “stunning in its disregard for Ms. Cox’s life, fertility, and the rule of law.”
In a letter addressed to the hospitals where the doctor involved in the case had admitting privileges, Paxton on Thursday had threatened to take legal action if Cox had an abortion in the state. He contended that Cox’s doctor did not meet “all of the elements necessary to fall within an exception to Texas’ abortion laws” and that the judge was “not medically qualified to make this determination.”
Paxton said the Travis County judge’s order would not excuse the hospital or doctor from civil or criminal liability “including first degree felony prosecutions.” He added that the temporary restraining order “will expire long before the statute of limitations for violating Texas’ abortion laws expires.”
Doctors who perform abortions could be sentenced to five or more years in prison in many states. In Texas, they could go to jail for life.
Paxton is the first attorney general to issue such a clear and credible threat to hospitals and doctors in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. While doctors and hospitals have feared what might happen if they provide abortions later deemed illegal, no medical professional has yet been prosecuted under the new abortion bans.
“This is the most direct confrontation we’ve seen,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California at Davis who specializes in abortion. “There’s been some interest in prosecuting people who are in the broader abortion support network, but not doctors.”
That’s probably because doctors and hospitals are fairly risk-averse, she added. While many people have been helping to distribute abortion pills illegally since Roe was overturned, doctors don’t appear to be performing abortions in states with bans.
Molly Duane, senior staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in an online news briefing on Thursday that she would not comment on when or where Cox would proceed with an abortion.
Cox’s lawsuit could become a test case for similar cases elsewhere, with implications for abortion rights nationwide. On Friday, a pregnant woman sued Kentucky, arguing that the state’s near-total abortion ban violates the right to privacy and self-determination in the state constitution.
“I think the stakes are high in part because Paxton wants to stop Cox from being an example,” Ziegler said.
Cox and the Kentucky woman are the first two adult women to seek permission from a judge for an abortion since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.
Texas abortion laws are among the most restrictive in the country, outlawing all abortions except those that put the mother’s life at risk. Since the ban took effect, many women with life-threatening pregnancy conditions have had to seek care out of state, with doctors too fearful to treat them.
Cox’s suit is not related to a separate, broader case, Zurawski v. State of Texas, in which five women who had been pregnant sued the state over its near-total abortion ban. The women have claimed that state law denied them proper obstetrics health care and put their lives in danger.
Four of the women traveled out of state to have abortions; the fifth, whose fetus did not have a chance of surviving, was allowed to deliver only after she became septic, leaving her with permanent physical damage. The case now involves 20 women, and the Texas state Supreme Court held a hearing on the matter last week.
Pradnya Joshi, Caroline Kitchener and Jintak Han contributed reporting.
xxxxxxxxx
Texas Supreme Court Blocks Woman With Life-Threatening Pregnancy From Emergency Abortion
The lower court’s decision was put on hold, and the Court said the case would remain pending. However, a timeline on when a full ruling would be issued was not given.
“Without regard to the merits, the Court administratively stays the district court’s December 7, 2023 order,” the order stated, per CNN. Texas attorney general Ken Paxton had previously requested the high court to reverse a judge’s decision granting Kate Cox’s request for the potentially life-saving procedure.
Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant and a mother of two, had filed a lawsuit against Texas over its restrictive abortion bans. Her fetus was found to have a fatal condition known as Trisomy 18. The baby has no chance of survival, but under state law, there are only two options available to Cox: a vaginal delivery, or a C-section. Either option would risk her life or her ability to have children in the future.
After Cox had been issued a temporary restraining order Thursday to allow her to get an abortion, the attorney general sent letters to three Houston-area hospitals where the doctor who was to perform her abortion practices. In his letter, he threatened staff with civil and criminal penalties if the procedure were to take place.
“The temporary restraining order granted by the Travis County district judge purporting to allow an abortion to proceed will not insulate hospitals, doctors or anyone else from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws,” Paxton said in a statement after the judge’s decision. “This includes first degree felony prosecutions…and civil penalties of not less than $100,000 for each violation.”
His letter marked a stark difference from Travis County Judge Maya Guerra Gamble, who granted the temporary restraining order. Judge Gamble reportedly teared up as she read her opinion from the bench: “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.”
As abortion rights amendment takes place in Ohio Constitution, advocates look to future - Ohio Capital Journal
By: Susan Tebben - December 8, 2023 4:50 am
COLUMBUS, OH — NOVEMBER 07: Supporters of Issue 1 react to early results at the election night watch party hosted by Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights and Pro-Choice Ohio, November 7, 2023, at the Hyatt Regency Downtown in Columbus, Ohio. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Only use photo with original article.)
Thursday marked the official date that the reproductive rights amendment, approved overwhelmingly by voters in November as Issue 1, took its place in the Ohio Constitution.
The amendment marks a “beacon of hope” and a representation of what Ohio voters can do, according to Dr. Marcela Azevedo, a leader from Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights and a member of the team who wrote the amendment.
The amendment is a landmark in a year full of political battles over the constitution and abortion access in the state.
“2023 has been the most consequential year in Ohio constitutional history since Ohio’s iconic 1912 constitutional convention,” said Steven Steinglass, constitutional law professor and dean emeritus of the Cleveland State University College of Law.
Steinglass also said November’s Issue 1 was a “game-changer,” calling into question various state statutes instituted or attempted even before the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs overturned Roe v. Wade’s legalizing of abortion nationwide, such as 24-hour waiting periods and hospital privilege limits for abortion providers.
Legislators over the last few years have also attempted “trigger bans,” laws that, if passed, would have automatically banned abortion at certain levels of gestation if Roe v. Wade was overturned.
One law that was a part of Ohio’s reproductive health landscape before Roe v. Wade was overturned was the six-week ban, enacted in 2019. The law was on the books for three months before lawsuits tied up the legislation. It re-emerged after the Dobbs decision, but once again was pinned down by lawsuits months later.
The law is still paused due to a ruling by a Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas judge, and awaiting an Ohio Supreme Court decision on whether or not the ban can continue as the lawsuit moves forward.
The active abortion regulations, and even the measures tied up in court, create conflict that has yet to be resolved, even as abortion rights is enshrined in the state constitution.
“Some restrictions will get litigated, and others will simply be ignored,” Steinglass said in a press conference Thursday on the amendment’s enactment. “This is a self-executing amendment, therefore even without any action by the General Assembly or the courts, the reproductive freedom amendment is now effective.”
Rather than resolve the legal conflicts simply and easily, Steinglass said the more likely scenario pits legislators against the voter-approved amendment. Efforts to undercut it have already been seen, with a bill floated by state Rep. Jennifer Gross, R-West Chester, to take enforcement of the amendment out of the hands of the judicial branch, and put control entirely into the GOP-majority legislature.
House Speaker Jason Stephens, R-Kitts Hill, has said he doesn’t see the proposal making it too far, going so far as to call it “Schoolhouse Rock-type stuff,” but efforts to repeal and replace the amendment could still be on the table in the future, as Senate President Matt Huffman, R-Lima, proposed.
Steinglass wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a lawsuit from anti-abortion rights groups arguing that the new amendment is unconstitutional, though he calls efforts to that effect “Hail Mary” strategies.
“Unless there is a major, major U-turn in the federal courts … these challenges are not going anywhere at all,” he said. “There is absolutely no precedent, and I think their chances of being successful are slim to none.”
As for the future of abortion care past the legal avenues, medical professionals hope to see guidance from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, and even state medical licensing boards to help them navigate a state with an abortion amendment in place, but also unclear regulations.
“Until we see some true guidance from the people who make the rules and regulations, I personally will be continuing to follow what’s in the law,” said Dr. Amy Burkett, an OB/GYN from Northeast Ohio.
There is concern from doctors about getting unbiased guidance from the State Medical Board of Ohio, considering a leader of the anti-abortion (and anti-Issue 1) movement, Ohio Right to Life President Mike Gonidakis, is a member of the board, re-appointed to the board in 2022 by Gov. Mike DeWine.
“We can not count on those people to be objective when it comes to these new laws,” Azevedo said.
As abortion services providers look to expand on their work with the new amendment in place, old problems still abound, including the stigma around abortion as medical care.
“There’s no difference between going to have an abortion and going to have a broken arm fixed,” said Lexis Dotson-Dufault, the new executive director of Abortion Fund-Ohio. “It’s just health care.”
AFO works to help patients navigate state laws and the dozens of restrictions around abortion that are still in place.
“I think we have to put in so much work to get to the people that do not know about this, that are not informed on this topic and what the legislature is doing,” Dotson-Dufault said. “Next is making sure people know abortion is available at 21 weeks and six days from the date of your last menstrual period.”
That education also includes a continued push to inform the public on persistently negative Black maternal mortality rates in the state, which a study from The Commonwealth Fund shows worsens in places where abortion access is restricted.
“We can only make our communities safer and healthier with more access to care,” Dotson-Dufault said.
AFO has interacted with more than 4,000 patients this year, using more than $1 million in donations for direct patient care, including transportation support and lodging for appointments across state lines when the six-week ban was still in place.
With new legal standards in place from the constitutional amendment in place, Dotson-Dufault hopes bigger institutions and donors will invest in abortion care.
“I think a lot of people were scared to invest big money in us because of the legality,” she said. “This is a time more than ever where we can’t stop investing in abortion care.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Missouri Republicans propose bills to allow murder charges for people who get abortions
Reality Check is a Star series holding those in power to account and shining a light on their decisions. Have a suggestion for a future story? Email tips@kcstar.com.
Missouri Republican lawmakers are pushing a pair of bills that would allow for women to be charged with murder for getting an abortion in the state.
The pieces of legislation would give fetuses the same rights as human beings, which would allow for criminal charges to be filed against anyone who gets an abortion, helps someone get an abortion or provides abortion care in the state, which implemented a near-total ban on the procedure after last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Republicans state Sen. Mike Moon from Ash Grove and state Rep. Bob Titus from Billings pre-filed the bills last Friday ahead of next year’s legislative session, which begins next month.
The bills, both called the “Abolition of Abortion in Missouri Act,” do not state explicitly whether getting an abortion in another state would be illegal. While abortion is banned in Missouri in nearly all circumstances, the procedure is still available in bordering states Kansas and Illinois.
The bills do allow for a “duress” defense if a woman is charged with murder for getting an abortion. They also do not allow for criminal charges for “lawful” medical procedures performed by a doctor and if an abortion is performed to save the patient’s life or if a doctor accidentally aborts a fetus during a life-saving procedure.
The Republican-led bills come as abortion rights advocates in Missouri try to get a measure restoring some form of abortion on the state ballot in 2024.
The legislation indicates that some Missouri Republicans are pushing forward on expanding the state’s near-total ban on abortion in the next legislative session even as the ban has been criticized for ushering in a chaotic and uncertain era for women and doctors.
While Missouri remains staunchly conservative, abortion rights remain popular. Polling conducted last year by Saint Louis University and British pollster YouGov showed that a majority of Missourians were in favor of some level of legal abortion and disagreed with the state’s ban on abortion.
“While the mainstream anti-abortion movement tries to publicly distance themselves from the politically and socially unpopular insistence to criminally punish people for accessing abortion care, these bills are a stepping stone for a small fringe group of extremists to intentionally criminalize people seeking abortions,” said Mallory Schwarz, the executive director of Abortion Action Missouri.
Schwarz, in a statement, pointed to a group called Abolish Abortion Missouri, which she said was behind the bills. This group, she said, “is also the source of threatening harassment targeted at abortion patients, providers, and Abortion Action Missouri clinic escorts on a daily basis.”
The bills, Schwarz said, create new ways to police people based on their pregnancy outcomes, arguing that “pregnant people around the country are being targeted, prosecuted, and jailed in instances of abortion and even miscarriages.”
If Missouri lawmakers approve Titus’ bill, it would go into effect if signed by Republican Gov. Mike Parson. Moon’s bill would have to be approved by Missouri voters.
Titus, in a phone interview, said the “taking of an innocent is the taking of innocent life,” arguing that the goal of his bill was not about punishing anybody. But, he said, “if you’re going to treat babies as humans and people then the penalties for taking an innocent life should be commensurate with that.”
“That a mother would take her own child’s life to me is unconscionable,” he said. “I’m not a mother but I have ten children and I value them greatly. It’s inconceivable that a mother would knowingly do that. If it’s not an act of murder, then what is it?”
Moon did not respond to calls and requests for comment on Thursday.
While advocates are pushing for an abortion rights proposal in 2024, they have not unified behind one version of the measure and face a tight deadline to get it on the ballot.
Both Republican-led bills will face a steep climb during this year’s legislative session as the state’s abortion ban faces intense criticism and has energized abortion rights supporters. They also don’t have the backing of at least one prominent anti-abortion lobbyist in Jefferson City, Sam Lee. One of the state’s top anti-abortion groups, Missouri Right to Life, also opposed a nearly identical bill from Moon last session.
“There is nothing pro-life whatsoever about legislation that would allow the death penalty for a woman who undergoes an abortion or any other person who performs an abortion on her,” Lee said in a text to The Star.
If the bills get committee hearings, Lee said, “we will vigorously testify against them and strongly urge other members of the legislature to vote them down.”
Moon, a hard-right senator, is known for his extreme and fringe views within the General Assembly, including comments this year suggesting that children as young as 12 should be able to get married as he pushed legislation that would ban gender-affirming care for minors.
With the upcoming 2024 election in November, the issue of abortion rights and the state’s ban on the procedure could be major flashpoints during next year’s legislative session which begins Jan. 3.
Another Republican, state Rep. Brian Seitz from Branson also pre-filed a bill that would give fetuses the same protections as human beings — but his bill does not explicitly address criminal actions.
Missouri Democrats have also pre-filed bills to repeal the state’s ban on abortion or to clarify that the ban does not affect access to birth control.
xxxxxxxx
GOP Senate candidates soften their abortion stances amid a post-Roe losing streak
- Create your free profile or log in to save this article
Republican candidates in states that will determine control of the U.S. Senate next year have quietly shifted their stances on abortion rights in an attempt to combat Democrats' success running on the issue.
In key 2024 battleground states, some GOP Senate hopefuls have subtly begun to place more emphasis on situations in which abortion should be legal, while others have made clear they oppose a federal ban on the procedure.
The shift in focus comes as Democrats have continued to win elections across the country by forcefully emphasizing their support for abortion rights in the 18 months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Republican strategists have urged their candidates to oppose a national ban, while party leaders have simultaneously implored them to address the issue head-on.
Democrats say Republicans are trying to soften stances that may have been deeply unpopular with a majority of voters.
“On the record and on video, Republican Senate candidates have already staked out dangerous positions that would make abortion illegal without exceptions — and we’ll make sure voters see and hear them in their own words.” said Nora Keefe, a spokesperson for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the party’s Senate campaign arm.
These are the declared Republican candidates in five battleground Senate states who have notably shifted how they publicly discuss the issue in recent months.
Arizona: Kari Lake
Lake — who could end up in a three-way general election against independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema and Democratic challenger Ruben Gallego — was one of the first and most prominent Republicans to shift her position on the abortion issue.
During her unsuccessful 2022 run for governor in Arizona, Lake said she supported an 1864 law banning almost all abortions in the state — she called it "a great law that’s already on the books" — that briefly snapped back into effect after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision.
She now offers a more nuanced position: opposing a federal ban and acknowledging that her own views regarding state policy conflict with some voters’ preferences.
In a statement on her campaign website published earlier this fall, Lake said that while she “wants to do everything she can to help women choose life, to choose to bring that blessing into their own existence,” she “also recognizes that a majority of people in this country and in the State of Arizona hold the view that abortion should be legal with restrictions.”
“Arizona’s law currently allows abortions up to 15 weeks, and Kari does not support a federal ban on abortion. Abortion is, as the courts decided, an issue for states to decide, not the federal government,” her website says. (Lake’s campaign, asked by NBC News to clarify her position, referred to her website.)
Pennsylvania: Dave McCormick
McCormick, who faces little opposition for the chance to run against Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, said at a Republican primary debate during his unsuccessful run for Senate last year that life begins at conception and that "in very rare instances, there should be exceptions for the life of the mother."
Democrats began running ads against McCormick in Pennsylvania featuring those statements this July — two months before he’d even entered the race — prompting his campaign to spend much of its first several weeks clarifying that he had also said that he’d supported exceptions for abortion care in cases of rape, incest and saving the life of the mother.
“As Dave has said numerous times last cycle and more recently, he is pro-life and supports exceptions in the cases of rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother,” said McCormick campaign spokesperson Elizabeth Gregory.
Nevada: Sam Brown
Brown, who is vying to run against Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen, has described himself as “pro-life” and opposed to “any bill that pushes for federal funding of abortion, late term abortions, or abortion without parental notification” and supportive “of federal judges who understand the importance of protecting life.”
He declined as recently as July to weigh in on whether he would support a national abortion ban. But responding to requests to clarify his position, Brown said that he opposed a prospective federal abortion ban and that any restrictions against care should include exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.
“I have consistently maintained that this issue should be decided at the state level, and the people of Nevada have made their decision,” he said in a statement. “I am personally pro-life, and I believe there should be exceptions for the tragic situations of rape, incest, and where the life of the mother is at risk.”
Ohio: Bernie Moreno, Frank LaRose, Matt Dolan
Businessman Bernie Moreno, one of three Republican candidates seeking to challenge Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, has bounced around on the abortion issue.
Moreno has said that “Republicans should never back down from their belief that life begins at conception and that abortion is the murder of an innocent baby.” Earlier this year, in an attempt to define his views on a ballot measure that voters passed in Ohio last month to enshrine abortion rights in the state Constitution, he falsely claimed that the measure would let a rapist “force” a woman to get an abortion.
More recently, Moreno has offered more nuance about his position on the issue at the national level. He said in October that he supports a federal 15-week abortion ban that would include exceptions for rape, incest and saving the life of the mother — but would also want to allow states to issue additional restrictions.
Moreno’s two competitors for the GOP Senate nomination — Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose and state Sen. Matt Dolan — have also made their opposition to abortion clear, but don’t appear to have yet backed away from any prior comments.
In August, LaRose told NBC News that “if a pro-life measure comes before the Senate, then I would vote as a pro-life American.”
As a state senator in 2018, he voted for a six-week abortion ban that snapped into effect (but currently remains blocked by a judge) after Roe was overturned. The law does not contain exceptions for rape and incest.
LaRose attracted criticism from abortion rights supporters earlier this year when he acknowledged that an August special election was “100% about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution.” And last month, LaRose — who as the state’s top election official had final say over the language of the November ballot measure — went even further, admitting that he’d consulted with three anti-abortion groups when drafting the ballot language to describe the measure.
In a statement, LaRose campaign spokesperson Ben Kindel said that LaRose “will always fight for the rights of the unborn and healthcare for women.”
Dolan, for his part, had slammed the Issue 1 ballot measure as “extreme” and has said abortion policy should be left to the states.
“The pro-life movement has worked hard to get it back to the states,” he told the Columbus Dispatch in October. “It’s back there, and I would prefer states to deal with it on a state-by-state basis.”
Dolan has also said he wouldn’t support any anti-abortion legislation that doesn’t contain exceptions for rape and incest.
Michigan: Mike Rogers, Peter Meijer, James Craig
Former Rep. Mike Rogers, who is one of several Republicans running for an open Senate seat, has suggested he would not support any federal abortion restrictions if elected.
“Will I go to Washington, D.C., and try to undo what the citizens of Michigan voted for? I will not,” he told the Detroit News in September. Last year, Michigan voters passed a state constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to an abortion.
But abortion rights supporters have pointed out that Rogers, during his 14 years in Congress, voted at least twice for federal abortion restrictions. That included supporting a bill in 2012 that would have banned almost all abortions (and did not include any exceptions for rape or incest) and a bill in 2013 that that would have criminalized most abortion care in the United States.
Similarly, former Rep. Peter Meijer — who as a member of Congress repeatedly voted against expanding abortion rights — said recently that while he was “proud” of his record of “protecting life,” he acknowledged that “we’re clearly in a different world today after Roe has gone away.”
“I do not support federal bans on abortion, period, full stop,” Meijer told the Detroit Free Press last week, adding that abortion restrictions “will be decided at the state level.”
Former Detroit Police Chief James Craig, who before the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling had repeatedly said he supported a since-repealed 1931 abortion ban in the state, told the Detroit News in October that he was opposed to a federal abortion ban.
“I think a heartbeat of a child matters. But I’m also sensitive to it being realistic and something that should stay with the states,” he said.
Spokespersons for the Rogers, Craig and Meijer campaigns didn’t respond to questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment