Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
—————————————————————
The nine Republicans on the Texas Supreme Court just told Kate Cox she'll have to wait to get the life saving abortion she needs until they decide what she and her doctors can do with her body. They are torturing this woman.
Beto O'Rourke: X.
---------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE DAY: “I just never thought I’d be in the situation I’m in right now. Twenty weeks pregnant with a baby that won’t survive and could jeopardize my health and a future pregnancy,” Cox wrote. She also explained why she was seeking legal permission in Texas for the procedure. “I am a Texan. 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?” Cox said."
-------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Texas woman at the center of an abortion ban challenge leaves state for procedure," by Reporters Caroline Kitchener and Maegan Vazquez, published by The Washington Post, on December 11, 2023.
GIST: "Kate Cox, a Dallas-area woman who petitioned a judge to get an abortion in Texas, has left the state for abortion care after a week of legal whiplash.
The Texas Supreme Court late Friday night blocked a lower-court ruling that would have allowed Cox to get an abortion under the state’s near-total abortion ban but has not yet issued a final decision on the matter.
Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two, had sought an abortion after learning that her fetus had a fatal genetic condition and that carrying the pregnancy to term could jeopardize her future fertility. The case is the first instance of an adult pregnant woman asking a court for permission to terminate her pregnancy under an abortion ban since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.
Cox’s lawsuit has been widely viewed as a test case for other abortion litigation across the country. Advocacy groups have tried a variety of different approaches to overturn or temporarily block the bans, in full or in part, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022. Most recently, several cases have centered on the women directly affected by the laws, instead of abortion clinics or doctors.
While the Texas Supreme Court might have eventually ruled in Cox’s favor, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the organization representing Cox in the case, said she couldn’t wait any longer for abortion care.
“This past week of legal limbo has been hellish for Kate,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “Her health is on the line. She’s been in and out of emergency rooms and she couldn’t wait any longer.”
Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble, an elected Democrat, on Thursday granted a temporary restraining order to allow Cox to have an abortion under the narrow exceptions to the state’s ban, which allows abortions in medical emergencies. But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) asked the Supreme Court of Texas to intervene to block Cox from obtaining an abortion.
Paxton in a letter on Thursday threatened to take legal action if Cox had the procedure in the state, warning doctors and hospitals that anyone involved in performing an abortion for Cox would face “civil and criminal liability … including first-degree felony prosecutions.” He contended that Cox’s doctor did not meet “all of the elements necessary to fall within an exception to Texas’ abortion laws” and that the judge was “not medically qualified to make this determination.”
The case drew national attention after Cox described in an op-ed in the Dallas Morning News how she came to the decision to seek an abortion after learning that her fetus had Trisomy 18.
Almost all such pregnancies end in miscarriage or stillbirth, according to the Cleveland Clinic. Babies who do survive often die prematurely.
“I just never thought I’d be in the situation I’m in right now. Twenty weeks pregnant with a baby that won’t survive and could jeopardize my health and a future pregnancy,” Cox wrote.
She also explained why she was seeking legal permission in Texas for the procedure.
“I am a Texan. 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?” Cox said.
Cox had been to the emergency room at least three times during the course of her pregnancy, according to the complaint, experiencing “severe cramping, diarrhea, and leaking unidentifiable fluid.” Cox has had two prior Caesarean sections and would have likely needed a third if she carried this pregnancy to term, according to the complaint — a procedure that doctors said could have affected her ability to have more children in the future.
Doctors and hospitals across the country watched closely as Cox’s legal battle unfolded. In Texas, a doctor who performs an abortion could be sentenced to life in prison.
In his letter on Thursday, Paxton issued the most clear and credible threat to date to hospitals and doctors in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. While medical professionals have feared what might happen if they provide abortions later deemed illegal, no medical professional has yet been prosecuted under the new abortion bans.
“This is the most direct confrontation we’ve seen,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California at Davis who specializes in the politics of reproduction. “There’s been some interest in prosecuting people who are in the broader abortion support network, but not doctors.”
The Texas Attorney General’s office was probably eager to stop Cox’s case from becoming a blueprint for future litigation across the country, Ziegler added.
Days after Cox filed her lawsuit, a second pregnant woman came forward with a lawsuit challenging the abortion ban in Kentucky. The class-action lawsuit, filed on Friday, could have broader implications for abortion access across the state. Instead of appealing just for her abortion, the unidentified pregnant woman is seeking to strike down the ban altogether.
Cox’s suit is not related to a separate, broader case in the state, Zurawski v. State of Texas, in which a group of women who experienced pregnancy complications sued the state over its abortion ban. The women claim that state law denied them proper health care and put their lives in danger. The Texas Supreme Court held a hearing on the matter last month."
——————————————————————
Tracking abortion access in the United States: Since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, the legality of abortion has been left to individual states. The Washington Post is tracking states where abortion is legal, banned or under threat.
Abortion pills: The court battle over the abortion pill mifepristone, which is part of a two-drug regimen used to terminate early pregnancy, is ongoing. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to rule on when and how mifepristone can be prescribed and distributed after the Justice Department asked the high court to overturn a lower-court ruling limiting access to the pill. For now, full access to mifepristone will remain in place after a Supreme Court ruling in the spring.
Post-Roe America: With Roe overturned, women who had secret abortions before Roe v. Wade felt compelled to speak out. Other women who were seeking abortions while living in states with strict abortion bans also shared their experiences with The Post through calls, text messages and other documentation. Here are photos and stories from across America since the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
—————————————-----------------
The entire story can be read at:
————————————————————
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/47049136857587929
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices.
Lawyer Radha Natarajan;
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater’s attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, “Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it’s the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.
https://deadline.com/2021/11/alice-sebold-lucky-rape-conviction-overturned-anthony-broadwater-123488014
