The Supreme Court will hear the abortion pill case
The Texas Medical Board isn’t going to let a woman get an abortion: An advocacy group filed a lawsuit in November 2022
In November 2022, the group brought suit in Texas, claiming that the FDA’s original approval process was flawed because it did not properly assess safety risks. An initial ruling from Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas sided with the plaintiffs, invalidating the FDA’s approval. kacsmaryk is an appointee of the president who has anti-abortion views.
The government says the drug has been safe and effective since 2000. In its brief, the government says the FDA has “maintained that scientific judgment across five presidential administrations, while updating the drug’s approved conditions of use based on additional evidence and experience,” including the over five million patients who have taken it.
“I think any regular person can look at her case and say, ‘Well, surely Kate should qualify'” for an abortion, Cox’s lawyer, Molly Duane of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told NPR’s Morning Edition.
In court and in filings, the office of Paxton argued that pregnant women with life threatening pregnancies who do not get appropriate care in Texas can file lawsuits against their doctors for malpractice.
There are three laws governing abortion in Texas. For instance, Texas has a so-called “heartbeat law.” In some states, the law says that abortion is allowed if cardiac activity can be detected six weeks into the baby’s life. Texas also has a law prohibiting all abortions from conception to birth. It supersedes the six-week-ban in early pregnancy.
“In the two years that these abortion bans have been in effect in Texas, the attorney general and officials for the state have remained eerily silent. They have refused to tell anyone what the exception means,” Duane says.
One of the three laws says anyone can be held liable if they help a woman get an abortion. A person who drives their wife to the hospital for an illegal abortion in Texas could be sued anywhere. The petition was passed so that Kate’s husband could be protected from this provision of S.B. 8.
“The courts cannot go further by entering into the medical-judgment arena,” they wrote. “The Texas Medical Board, however, can do more to provide guidance in response to any confusion that currently prevails.”
Yet, Duane points out, Cox was not “sick enough” in the Texas justices’ eyes. That means that the exception isn’t there and should be really chilling. Duane added, “My question is, if she doesn’t [qualify], who does?”
Cox wrote in a Dallas Morning News op-ed last week that she did not want to travel. Why should I or any other woman have to drive or fly hundreds of miles to do what we feel is best for ourselves and our families, to determine our own futures?”
Her lawyers and her doctor argued that her future fertility was at risk. Does it count as a “major bodily function”? Cox would be safe if she had an abortion with her husband and doctor. That’s what the Center for Reproductive Rights asked the court when it filed an emergency petition on Cox’s behalf, requesting the abortion bans’ penalties be suspended for Cox, her husband, and her doctor, so she could have a legal abortion in Texas.
Kate Cox has a husband and two children in the Dallas area. About 20 weeks into her third pregnancy, she learned her fetus has Trisomy 18, a genetic condition with slim to no chance of survival. She had gone to the emergency room multiple times in a two week period due to her symptoms.
Dana Northcraft: Telehealth for Medication Abortion and the Future of Reproductive Health Initiative for Telehealth Equity & Solutions (Republique Review)
Dana Northcraft is the founder of the Reproductive Health Initiative for Telehealth Equity and Solutions and she says the future of Telehealth for medication Abortion care is at stake. “Telehealth for medication abortion is safe and effective and helps people overcome barriers to care, whether it be long travel distances or getting time off from work or school.”
