{"id":305807,"date":"2024-01-29T10:44:27","date_gmt":"2024-01-29T16:44:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=305807"},"modified":"2024-01-29T09:49:28","modified_gmt":"2024-01-29T15:49:28","slug":"texas-abortion-plaintiffs-court-legislate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/texas-abortion-plaintiffs-court-legislate\/","title":{"rendered":"The Texas abortion plaintiffs don’t want clarification. They want the court to legislate."},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

In its original lawsuit<\/a> against the state of Texas, the Center for Reproductive Rights along with Amanda Zurawski and 19 other women asked the court to “enter a judgment against [the state] granting appropriate declaratory relief to clarify the scope of the exception to Texas’s abortion bans.” The plaintiffs, mostly women who claim they were denied medically-necessary abortions, sought “a Texas court to affirm doctors’ ability to perform abortions under certain exceptions.”<\/p>\n

What the lawsuit asks<\/h3>\n

The suit filed by Zurawski states, “The AMA [American Medical Association] recently updated its Principles of Medical Ethics to clarify that in the context of abortion, ‘physicians must have latitude to act in accord with their best professional judgment’ and be ‘expressly permitt[ed] . . . to perform abortions in keeping with good medical practice.’ The AMA also states that \u201c[l]ike all health care decisions, a decision to terminate a pregnancy should be made privately within the relationship of trust between patient and physician in keeping with the patient\u2019s unique values and needs and the physician\u2019s best professional judgment.'”<\/p>\n

But based on Texas law and the claims made in the lawsuit, it appears the true goal is to get the court to legislate from the bench in favor of expanded abortion access.<\/p>\n

What the laws state<\/h3>\n

The Texas Heartbeat Act<\/a> does provide an exception<\/em> for medical emergencies that allows doctors to use their medical expertise to determine how to handle a specific woman’s case. It states that abortion is allowed following the detection of an embryonic heartbeat “if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance” with the law when the doctor determines “that a medical emergency necessitated the abortion…”<\/p>\n

The law allows doctors to use their own medical judgment<\/em> to determine the care a pregnant woman needs if she is facing complications.<\/p>\n

In other words, the law is already exactly how abortion advocates are claiming it should be.<\/p>\n

In addition, in September, a new Texas law took effect. HB 3058<\/a> (Relating to the provision of certain medical treatment to a pregnant woman by physician or health care provider) states that concerning pregnancy complications, “It is an affirmative defense to liability in a civil action brought against a physician or health care provider for a violation [of the pro-life law when] the physician or health care provider exercised reasonable medical judgment in providing medical treatment to a pregnant woman in response to: (1)A An ectopic pregnancy at any location; or (2)AA a previable rupture of membranes.”<\/p>\n

HB 3058 also states, “[T]he board may not take disciplinary action against a physician who exercised reasonable medical judgment in providing medical treatment to a pregnant woman.” It goes on to say, “A physician or health care provider is justified in exercising reasonable medical judgment in providing medical treatment to a pregnant woman…”<\/p>\n

Based on the wording in both of these pro-life laws, to ask the state to “clarify the scope of the exception” and to claim that the law doesn’t<\/em> want physicians to act with “their best professional judgment” as the AMA advises, are manipulative reasons to file a lawsuit since the laws are already\u00a0clear<\/em> that doctors are allowed to exercise their best medical judgment.<\/p>\n

HB 3058 also makes it clear that treatments for ectopic pregnancy and the preterm rupture of membranes are not abortions<\/em>.<\/p>\n