The Texas Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider “medical exemptions” to the abortion ban in this conservative South American state, after a first instance ruling in favor of an organization of women and doctors.
• Also read: A handful of American doctors are opposing laws banning abortions
• Also read: A Texan woman who was banned from having an abortion says she was forced to give birth to a non-viable child
• Also read: Texans denied an abortion recount their ordeal during a hearing
Since the Federal Circuit gave states the freedom to enact abortion laws in June 2022, reversing nearly half a century of case law, about twenty of them have banned or severely restricted abortion.
Texas prohibits any voluntary termination of pregnancy (abortion), including in cases of incest or rape. The only exceptions are if there is a risk of death or serious disability for the mother.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the complaint, believes these medical exemptions are too vaguely defined, which has a chilling effect on doctors. They face up to 99 years in prison, a $100,000 fine and the revocation of their medical license.
In her decision in August, trial judge Jessica Mangrum acknowledged that the plaintiffs, now in their 20s, “had access to abortion delayed or denied because of widespread uncertainty about physicians’ discretion.”
It ruled that practitioners cannot be prosecuted after exercising their “good faith judgment” and that they have the authority to determine what constitutes a medical emergency that “endangers the life and/or health (including fertility) of a person.” could endanger a woman.”
The Texas Attorney General’s Office immediately appealed, but that decision did not take effect.
It is therefore up to the state Supreme Court to decide on this stay.
The funds from this legal dispute will be decided at a trial in March 2024.
The state of Texas believes the medical exemption definition proposed by the Center for Reproductive Rights would amount to “allowing abortions for pregnant women with medical problems ranging from headaches to depression.”
The first plaintiff to testify, Amanda Zurawski, who gave her name to this case, suffered a hydrocele while 18 weeks pregnant. Her doctor told her that a miscarriage was inevitable.
But inducing labor “would be considered an illegal abortion,” she told the court, explaining that she had to wait three days to undergo surgery after suffering sepsis, a generalized infection that caused her to spend several days in intensive care Undergoing this operation resulted in the loss of one of his tubes.