{"id":305316,"date":"2024-01-19T12:49:17","date_gmt":"2024-01-19T18:49:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=305316"},"modified":"2024-01-18T14:09:43","modified_gmt":"2024-01-18T20:09:43","slug":"texas-medical-board-legal-intentionally-kill-babies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/texas-medical-board-legal-intentionally-kill-babies\/","title":{"rendered":"Texas Medical Board asked to say when it’s legal to intentionally kill preborn babies"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

According to The Texas Tribune<\/a>, two attorneys have asked the Texas Medical Board to issue guidance regarding what situations qualify as medical exceptions under the state’s pro-life laws. The question is being raised following the Texas Supreme Court’s decision not to allow a woman to abort her baby following a prenatal diagnosis in December.<\/p>\n

The petition was filed on Tuesday by attorneys Steve and Amy Bresnen, who are also pro-abortion lobbyists<\/a> who work to create and pass legislation. They want the medical board to give “clear guidance” on the circumstances under which women in Texas are allowed to intentionally cause the deaths of their preborn children through abortion. Dr. Sherif Zaafran, the medical board chair, has said that they are reviewing the law and expect to respond to the petition by the end of the week.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt’s time for the Medical Board to get off the sidelines. The fact that life-threatening conditions related to pregnancy are driving women out of state for abortion care is not acceptable,\u201d Steve Bresnen said in an email to The Texas Tribune. \u201cThe Legislature, the Governor, the Supreme Court of Texas and physicians have asked for clarity and the TMB has the power to give it. There is no excuse for further delay.”<\/p>\n

READ: 3 key facts about the case of the Texas woman aborting her baby with a disability<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

The case that the Bresnens referred to was that of Kate Cox. Cox<\/a> was initially happy to be pregnant and understood the risks to her health, willingly taking them on to give birth to her wanted baby. It was only after her baby was diagnosed with Trisomy 18 that she did not want to continue to be pregnant and blamed the risks to her health for her decision. She was apparently willing to take those risks for a healthy child, but not a child with a disability. According to Cox’s doctors, she was not in any immediate or “life-threatening” risk.<\/p>\n

She, and those who supported her, claimed that her child would definitely die at or shortly after birth. While this was once true of all children with Trisomy 18, when given proper medical care, children with the condition may now live longer than ever expected.<\/p>\n

After Cox’s story made headlines, families of individuals with Trisomy 18 fired back<\/a> at the media’s description of Trisomy 18 as “fatal” and “incompatible with life.”\u00a0New\u00a0research<\/a> is showing that children with Trisomy 18 are not all destined to die at birth as previously believed. When given proper medical care, such as life-saving heart surgery, newborns with the condition have a 90% discharge rate<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Texas law is clear that a woman’s life must be in danger for an abortion to be legal. Induced abortion is the intentional and deliberate killing of the child prior to delivery, not simply the ending of a pregnancy. Pregnancy can be legally ended through delivery when a woman’s life is at risk, through an emergency C-section or preterm delivery.<\/p>\n

These procedures allow doctors to try to save both mother and child. But Cox didn’t want her baby saved. She specifically requested that the court allow her to have a D&E abortion, which would mean her baby would be dismembered and delivered in pieces \u2014 a completely medically unnecessary procedure that carries the goal of a dead child<\/em>, not of saving a woman’s life.<\/p>\n