{"id":303114,"date":"2023-12-08T23:21:23","date_gmt":"2023-12-09T05:21:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=303114"},"modified":"2023-12-12T23:22:44","modified_gmt":"2023-12-13T05:22:44","slug":"texas-judge-approves-dismember-abortion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/texas-judge-approves-dismember-abortion\/","title":{"rendered":"Texas Supreme Court freezes lower court ruling that approved 20-week baby’s dismemberment"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

UPDATE, 12\/12\/23:<\/strong> A press release from Texas Alliance for Life further discusses the Texas Supreme Court’s decision to overrule a lower court’s ruling granting Kate Cox permission to abort her 20-week child diagnosed with Trisomy 18. While this condition is generally labeled as “incompatible with life,” many children with the condition do survive beyond birth for days, weeks, or even years, if they are given proper treatment and the surgeries they need. Texas Alliance for Life noted that the plaintiff failed to prove the case that Cox’s pregnancy actually risked her future fertility \u2014 despite the fact that the mainstream media is reporting it as if it is unequivocally true:<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court pointed out that Texas’ law allows abortions when a pregnancy endangers a mother’s life or risks substantial impairment of a major bodily function (such as fertility) in a doctor’s reasonable medical judgment, an objective standard.<\/em><\/p>\n

But that is not the case with Ms. Cox, in which Dr. Karsan judged the risk according to her own, non-objective belief. “Dr. Karsan asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at lease did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s condition poses the risks the exception requires,” the Court explained. If she meet[s] the objective standard, Cox could get the abortion.<\/em><\/p>\n

In issuing the opinion, the Court rebuked the district court. “Judges do not have the authority to expand the statutory exception to reach abortions that do not fall within its text under the guise of interpreting it,” it wrote. “The trial court erred in applying a different, lower standard instead of requiring reasonable medical judgment.”<\/em><\/p>\n

UPDATE, 12\/11\/23:<\/strong> Kate Cox has announced that she left the state of Texas to undergo an abortion. Where she went and whether she has already had the abortion is not clear.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis past week of legal limbo has been hellish for Kate,\u201d Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, the organization representing Cox, said, according to the Washington Post<\/a>. \u201cHer health is on the line. She\u2019s been in and out of emergency rooms and she couldn\u2019t wait any longer.\u201d<\/p>\n

UPDATE, 12\/8\/23:<\/strong> The Texas Supreme Court has put a hold<\/a> on a lower court’s ruling to allow Kate Cox to obtain a D&E dismemberment abortion to kill her preborn child with Trisomy 18, past 20 weeks gestation. According to the Associated Press, “In a one-page order, the court said it was temporarily staying Thursday’s ruling ‘without regard to the merits.’ The case is still pending.” Attorney Molly Duane for the Center for Reproductive Rights told the press, \u201cWhile we still hope that the Court ultimately rejects the state\u2019s request and does so quickly, in this case we fear that justice delayed will be justice denied.\u201d<\/p>\n

But dismembering an innocent living child in the womb is not “justice.”<\/p>\n

In addition, the AP stated that “doctors have told Cox that if the baby\u2019s heartbeat were to stop, inducing labor would carry a risk of a uterine rupture because of her two prior cesareans sections, and that another C-section at full term would would endanger her ability to carry another child.”<\/p>\n

However, no explanation has to date been given as to why a D&E dismemberment abortion could be committed on a living child but not on a deceased one. According to<\/a> Kaiser-Permanente, “D&E is one method available for a second-trimester abortion. It may be done because of a severe medical problem or to remove tissue that remains after a miscarriage<\/strong>. It may also be done if you couldn’t get an abortion earlier in pregnancy” (emphasis added). Information from another health care provider even lists\u00a0 “potential benefits<\/a>” of a D&E over labor induction for a miscarriage.<\/p>\n

12\/7\/23:<\/strong> A Texas judge on Thursday gave approval<\/a> for a pregnant woman to undergo a dismemberment abortion that is not legally allowable under Texas law.<\/p>\n

According to ABC 7<\/a>, Judge Maya Guerra Gamble ruled that Texas resident Kate Cox could undergo a eugenic abortion on her preborn child following that child’s diagnosis of Trisomy 18. Cox, who has two born children delivered by C-section and is now 20 weeks pregnant, has underlying health conditions that her lawsuit<\/a>, Cox v. Texas<\/em>, claims put her at an increased risk of complications during pregnancy.<\/p>\n

“I’m trying to do what is best for my baby and myself, but the state of Texas is making us both suffer,” Cox said in a press release. “I need to end my pregnancy now so that I have the best chance for my health and a future pregnancy.”<\/p>\n

WARNING: Disturbing photo below.<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Her plans for a future pregnancy indicate that Cox is willing to risk her health to have a baby, just not a baby with a disability<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Also named<\/a> in the lawsuit is Cox’s husband Justin and Dr. Damla Carson. They had requested a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction to the abortion law due to the baby’s diagnosis of Trisomy 18.<\/span><\/p>\n

Texas law currently protects most preborn children from abortion except in cases in which a mother \u201chas a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places [her] at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

This indicates that if Cox’s life were at risk, an abortion would be allowable by law. (Induced abortion \u2014 the direct and intentional killing of a preborn child \u2014 is not medically necessary, as it is not necessary to purposefully kill a child to end a pregnancy.)<\/span><\/p>\n

An alleged risk to Cox<\/strong><\/p>\n

According to the court document, the couple was initially \u201cthrilled\u201d at the news of the pregnancy. Then C<\/span>ox began suffering from \u201ccramping and unidentifiable fluid leaks” and had to visit the emergency room three times. On Nov. 23, testing indicated that her preborn baby has Trisomy 18. The couple\u2019s doctors told them that the child is unlikely to survive and Cox may experience complications in future pregnancies if she continues the pregnancy.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cBecause Ms. Cox has had two prior cesarean surgeries (\u201cC-sections\u201d), continuing the pregnancy puts her at high risk for severe complications threatening her life and future fertility, including uterine rupture and hysterectomy. Ms. Cox understands that a dilation and evacuation (\u201cD&E\u201d) abortion is the safest option for her health and her best medical option given that she wants to have more children in the future,” states the lawsuit.<\/span><\/p>\n

It continues, \u201cYet because of Texas\u2019s abortion bans, Ms. Cox\u2019s physicians have informed her that their ‘hands are tied’ and she will have to wait until her baby dies inside her or carry the pregnancy to term, at which point she will be forced to have a third C-section, only to watch her baby suffer until death.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"

Face of a preborn child with feet, hand, rib cage, blood and placenta. Aborted at 21 weeks using the D&E abortion procedure.<\/p><\/div>\n

Her baby will suffer dismemberment<\/strong><\/p>\n

Cox’s baby would likely not suffer at birth if given proper medical and palliative care. However, she is going to suffer<\/em> through a D&E, dilation and evacuation abortion, during which she will be dismembered<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Rather than give birth to a baby with Trisomy 18, Cox has been given approval to have her child dismembered in the womb in an effort to avoid perceived suffering. After Cox’s cervix has been dilated, the abortionist will use a Sopher clamp to grasp the baby’s arms and legs and pull them off. He will end the procedure by crushing the baby’s skull.<\/p>\n