{"id":323912,"date":"2025-01-03T06:45:06","date_gmt":"2025-01-03T12:45:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=323912"},"modified":"2025-01-03T09:44:33","modified_gmt":"2025-01-03T15:44:33","slug":"kate-cox-abortion-fundraising-lies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/kate-cox-abortion-fundraising-lies\/","title":{"rendered":"Kate Cox’s abortion fundraising email lies about her pregnancy and dehumanizes her aborted baby"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

An email plea from the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights for end-of-year donations in December was penned by Kate Cox, a woman who was celebrated<\/a> for suing Texas for the (false) right to abort her preborn baby who had a disability. In the email, Cox noticeably does not<\/em> refer to her daughter, Chloe, as if she were a human being; she merely refers to her as “the pregnancy.”<\/p>\n

At 18 weeks, testing showed that Chloe might have Trisomy 18 (Edward’s syndrome), and by 20 weeks, her parents, Kate and Justin, had confirmed the diagnosis and won permission from a judge to abort Chloe. Then, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the state Supreme Court to halt that lower court’s order, which it did. The Court ruled that Cox did not qualify<\/em> for Texas’ medical exception loophole to its pro-life law because her life and health were not at risk<\/em> and it was not an emergency situation. And yet… the fundraising email claims the opposite. Cox ultimately elected to travel to New Mexico to end the life of her baby.<\/p>\n

“My name is Kate Cox,” reads the email. “Last December, the Texas Supreme Court denied my request for an emergency abortion, despite a fatal fetal diagnosis and severe risks to my health and future fertility. I was the first pregnant woman to ask a court’s permission to access an emergency abortion since the overturning of Roe v. Wade<\/em>.<\/p>\n

“In the midst of my health crisis, the Center for Reproductive Rights was my champion.”<\/p>\n

\"\"

Center for Reproductive Rights fundraising email.<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

Most babies born with Trisomy 18 survive to go home from the hospital<\/strong><\/h3>\n

In the email, Cox said (emphasis added):<\/p>\n

At 19 weeks pregnant, I learned my pregnancy<\/strong> had Trisomy 18<\/strong>, a fatal genetic condition. My husband and I were shattered.<\/em><\/p>\n

It was not her “pregnancy” that had been diagnosed with Trisomy 18; it was her child \u2014<\/strong> her living, growing child whom she had named<\/em>. Referring to a developing child in the womb as a “pregnancy” (instead of using the term correctly, as the time<\/strong> when a preborn child is developing in utero) is neither scientific nor accurate; yet in order to avoid humanizing preborn children, we see this language used often<\/a> by pro-abortion groups and individuals.<\/p>\n

Trisomy 18 is not “fatal” \u2014 though since her story first made headlines, Cox has erroneously argued that it is and has made it seem as though Chloe was destined to die at birth. That inaccurate and misleading description has caused outrage<\/a> among families within the Trisomy 18 community.<\/p>\n

Chloe’s condition was not “incompatible with life”; she was alive and safe in her mother’s womb, and advances in medical care could have helped her live outside the womb as well. Outdated studies<\/a> from data at least two decades old may have influenced Cox’s opinion of her child, but more recent research<\/a> out of the University of Michigan\u2019s Mott Children\u2019s Hospital has revealed that by \u201ctaking an aggressive approach to treatment, 90% of babies born with Edwards syndrome can go home from the hospital, and their five-year survival rate can reach close to 77%.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kate Cox’s life was not at risk<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Cox claimed that carrying Chloe to term would comprise her own health and future fertility. She continued in the email:<\/p>\n

My doctor said an abortion was necessary to protect my health \u2014 but Texas law said otherwise.<\/em><\/p>\n

Trisomy 18 causes no known increased risk to the mother’s health or life than any other pregnancy with a ‘healthy’ baby. While there isn\u2019t much data available on the effects of carrying a baby with Trisomy 18 to term for the mother physically, a study<\/a>\u00a0in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that the \u201codds of developing\u201d gestational diabetes or preeclampsia \u201cwere not increased.\u201d<\/p>\n

READ: 5 biggest lies the abortion industry has told since Roe v. Wade was overturned<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

There is<\/em> a known risk of increased amniotic fluid and possible need for a C-section delivery when carrying a baby with Trisomy 18, but Texas law allows for induced abortion when the mother\u2019s life is in danger \u2014 <\/em>and it was determined that Cox’s life was not on the line<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In fact, according to the American Association of Pro Life OB\/GYNs<\/a>, Trisomy 18 “does not inherently pose a danger to [a mother’s] health. Should a mother face pregnancy complications in addition, an obstetrician’s job is to treat those complications — but her child’s condition alone does not itself impact her health. Women can carry their pregnancies to term with a Trisomy 18 diagnosis.”<\/p>\n

Cox, however, had undergone two previous C-sections<\/em>, and that<\/em> health history (through no association with Trisomy 18), put her at an increased risk of uterine rupture with any<\/em> subsequent pregnancies and a vaginal delivery.<\/p>\n

Uterine rupture can cause infertility, and Cox wanted more children. A history of C-sections also puts women at risk of placenta previa and isthmocele, which is when a pouch of tissue forms on the uterine wall at the site of a C-section incision that hasn\u2019t healed completely. This increases the risk of abnormal bleeding in future pregnancies.<\/p>\n

If Chloe had been deemed completely healthy, those risks still would have existed for Cox.<\/p>\n

And Cox proved she was willing to take those risks for a ‘healthy’ baby; she intentionally became pregnant again after she aborted Chloe. But since that child was labeled ‘healthy,’ Cox willingly accepted the risks that the pregnancy brought \u2014 risks she was unwilling<\/em> to take for a child who would need additional care in life or might not live an average lifespan.<\/p>\n

Women can’t be prosecuted for abortions under Texas law<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Cox continued:<\/p>\n

Instead of receiving care, I was treated like a criminal. My husband and I were told we could be prosecuted simply for seeking critical health care<\/strong>. I was forced to flee my home state to get the procedure I needed.<\/em><\/p>\n

No pro-life laws allow mothers who undergo an abortion to be prosecuted \u2014 including Texas’ law, which does not include penalties for women. Cox would not have faced charges for illegally aborting Chloe. A physician committing an illegal abortion would have been the one facing penalties.<\/p>\n

In addition, Cox was not “forced to flee” Texas to get an abortion in New Mexico. She chose<\/em> to travel to abort Chloe of her own free will.<\/p>\n

The real reason for the lawsuit<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The Center for Reproductive Rights agreed to help Cox get an abortion because the group’s goal is to make abortion legal again in Texas, and even more accessible than before the fall of Roe v. Wade<\/em>.<\/p>\n

When a pro-life law passes, pro-abortion advocates often appeal to the “health of the mother” to create larger loopholes \u2014 but in reality, the goal is to keep abortion legal for any<\/em> reason; when pro-life laws do include health exceptions<\/em>, those advocates still oppose those laws. Abortion on demand is the goal, even when guised as “compassion” or concern for a mother’s health.<\/p>\n

Cox makes this obvious in her email, claiming, “Medical exceptions to abortion bans do not work.” In other words, allowing abortion only in cases of medical emergencies is unacceptable to her. For pro-abortion advocates, abortion must be legal for any reason<\/em> at any time<\/em> in pregnancy.<\/p>\n

Cox wanted to abort Chloe, not because Cox’s own health or life was at risk, but because Chloe had disabilities.<\/p>\n

Chloe’s rights were utterly violated<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Cox wrapped up her email by stating:<\/p>\n

Your support is the reason [Center for Reproductive Rights] can be there for those whose rights and lives are at stake.<\/em><\/p>\n

Again, Cox’s life was not at risk. Chloe, however, had her right to life stolen from her, and her life was violently ended through dismemberment<\/em> because of a diagnostic test result indicating she had a genetic health condition.<\/p>\n