Why Is US Court Deciding Whether A Woman Can Get Emergency Abortion?

The Supreme Court of Texas prohibited a woman from getting an emergency abortion temporarily. The 31-year-old woman, named Kate Cox, had a life-threatening pregnancy for 20 weeks in which her fetus was not viable. The child would either be stillborn or die within minutes, hours, or days. Now she has been forced to leave the state if she wants to pursue an emergency abortion. The unfolding situation has drawn the attention of none other than the President of the United States, Joe Biden, who labeled the circumstances as "outrageous."

The ruling was against the statement of a district court that had allowed Cox to get an abortion. Why do the lawmakers feel they have the right over women's bodily autonomy? 

The Tragic Dilemma

Cox's fetus is suffering from a rare genetic defect called full trisomy 18 that causes severe abnormalities and organ defects. If abortion is not conducted, there are chances that her uterus might rupture. However, the court vehemently denied her the right, forcing her to leave the state if she still wanted to pursue abortion.

Texas has one of the strictest abortion laws on abortion in the world. It prohibits abortion even in cases of rape or incest. It also has a law that allows private citizens to file legal suits against anyone who pursues abortion. Physicians of Texas, if found guilty of performing abortion will face imprisonment of 99 years, a fine of up to $100,000 and revocation of their medical licence. 

This is the reason why the Supreme Court didn't hesitate even once in stopping a woman from aborting a life-threatening pregnancy. 

District Court's ruling: A miscarriage of justice if abortion prohibited

A District Court of Texas had allowed Cox to get an abortion. District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble had allowed Cox to get the abortion under a medical exception under Texas laws that allows a woman to abort a fetus if it puts her health at risk. The judge said that the risk to Cox's fertility is such that not allowing abortion would be "a genuine miscarriage of justice".

However, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton petitioned the Supreme Court to stop the abortion. A conservative Republican, Paxton, said, "The "activist" judge's order does "not insulate hospitals, doctors or anyone else from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas' abortion laws."

A Desperate Journey for Reproductive Rights

In a White House statement, US President Joe Biden condemned the situation, deeming it "outrageous" that a woman should be compelled to leave her home state to seek an emergency abortion. The roots of this crisis lie in the restrictive abortion laws enacted by Republican officials in Texas, forcing women like Kate Cox to navigate a legal labyrinth to access essential healthcare.

Justice delayed, Justice denied: Attorney representing Cox

Attorney Molly Duane from the Center for Reproductive Rights who represented Cox in court, said, "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." She further added, "In the state's eyes, Ms. Cox simply isn't sick enough, isn't close enough to death, to qualify for the exception...It is clear that the attorney general of Texas thinks he is better suited to practice medicine than the physicians of his state."

I totally agree with Duane. Why does Paxton get to decide whether a woman should get an abortion or not? Don't women have bodily autonomy? Don't they have the right to decide whether they want a baby or not?

The lawmakers who put a stay on the abortion ignored that the pregnancy was life-threatening for both the mother and the child. This is just heartbreaking. It shows that moral principles are more important than saving a woman from a health risk. It also portrays that people consider women to be baby-making machines whose health and safety are secondary. 

Stop controlling women's bodily autonomy

Johnathan Stone, an attorney who represented Texas, said, "The abortion once performed is permanent and cannot be undone." To this, Duane rightly said, "I would just note that the harm to Ms Cox's life, health and fertility are very much also permanent and cannot be undone."

We don't know what would be the further proceedings in the case of Cox. But we do know that this ruling impacts the way society thinks about women. If this ruling is sustained, it will pose a serious threat to the rights of women over their bodies. It will make every woman fearful of exercising their reproductive rights. Pregnancy is a private matter. A woman shouldn't have to knock on the doors of the court and make a public display of her body to seek basic rights. Especially in the case of pregnancy, only the woman and the doctors have a say in whether it is viable or not. 

Views expressed are the author's own.