The Texas Supreme Court placed an administrative stay on Friday on a lower court’s temporary restraining order (TRO) that barred the enforcement of the state’s strict abortion bans on a pregnant woman whose fetus was recently diagnosed with a fatal condition.
The court placed an administrative stay on the TRO “pending further review” and “without regard to the merits.” The court did this after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton submitted a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the court in response to the TRO. Paxton argues in the petition that the trial court abused its discretion by ruling that the plaintiff’s condition meets the abortion ban’s narrow medical emergency exception. The petition states that the lower court granted the TRO on the “feeble basis” that the plaintiff’s doctor believes in good faith that an abortion is recommended.
The medical emergency exception under Texas’s abortion statute states that abortion is allowed if:
in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced; and the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive unless, in the reasonable medical judgment, that manner would create: a greater risk of the pregnant female’s death; or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant female.
Additionally, in response to the TRO, Paxton sent a letter to the plaintiff’s hospital, warning that the TRO “will not insulate hospitals, doctors, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws.” Texas law provides that performing an abortion is a felony punishable by up to life in prison unless the patient qualifies under a very narrow set of exceptions.
Paxton petitioned for the Texas Supreme Court to reverse the TRO shortly after its decision. The plaintiff in the case is Kate Cox, who sued earlier this week after learning that her fetus had Trisomy 18, a chromosomal condition that causes structural abnormalities in development. After evaluating Cox, multiple physicians determined that her fetus had no chance of survival and that continuing the pregnancy jeopardized her life and future fertility. However, no provider was willing to provide an abortion to Cox, who is over 20 weeks pregnant, due to Texas’s strict bans on abortion, including its trigger ban, Senate Bill (SB) 8, and its pre-Roe ban.
The Center for Reproductive Rights represents Cox in the case. In response to the Texas Supreme Court order, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights Molly Duane stated:
While we still hope that the Court ultimately rejects the state’s request and does so quickly, in this case we fear that justice delayed will be justice denied. We are talking about urgent medical care. Kate is already 20 weeks pregnant. This is why people should not need to beg for healthcare in a court of law.
This is not the only abortion-related case in the Texas Supreme Court. Last month, the court heard oral arguments in a case challenging abortion bans that prohibit the procedure in the instance of a medical emergency.
