As pro-aborts will soon trumpet from the rooftops, First Lady Jill Biden invited Kate Cox to be her guest at the State of the Union address this evening. Mrs. Cox made news late last year when she sued the State of Texas seeking a court order to abort her baby, who was diagnosed with Trisomy 18. Her co-plaintiff in the lawsuit was Dr. Damla Karsan, who wanted to perform the abortion in Texas.
Mrs. Cox was about twenty weeks along in her pregnancy when the Center for Reproductive Rights filed the suit on her and Dr. Karsan’s behalf. Karsan is also co-plaintiff in another Center for Reproductive Rights lawsuit involving five women attempting to circumvent Texas’ abortion statutes.
Texas law prohibits abortion except in cases where continuing the pregnancy could risk the mother’s life or pose “a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” In her lawsuit, Mrs. Cox did not claim that the pregnancy would risk her life or potentially cause significant harm. Dr. Karsan did not state that Mrs. Cox qualified for the exception in her “reasonable medical judgment,” as required by the statute.
The medical expert relied on by both parties in the lawsuit determined that neither Mrs. Cox nor Dr. Karsan alleged sufficient facts to show that an exception to Texas abortion law had been met. Moreover, nothing in the record shows that Mrs. Cox and Dr. Karsan had a doctor-patient relationship – or that Dr. Karsan had ever even examined Mrs. Cox – prior to filing the lawsuit. This is the case in almost all abortions.
Dr. Karsan wanted to schedule the abortion at Women’s Hospital in Houston, which requires that two doctors agree that the patient’s condition qualifies for the medical exception. If only one other doctor in the hospital had agreed that Mrs. Cox needed an abortion to safeguard her life or health, there would have been no need for a lawsuit. But no one – not even Mrs. Cox’s regular obstetrician – suggested that an abortion was medically necessary. The only doctor in the lawsuit was the abortion provider.
The Supreme Court of Texas held that physicians, not courts, are equipped to determine whether an abortion is medically and reiterated that “a pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a life-saving abortion in Texas.” Ironically, the Center for Reproductive Rights agreed that doctors should decide whether a medical necessity exists – yet it could not produce a single doctor who would do so.
In the end, Mrs. Cox had the abortion outside of Texas, saying she wanted to “do what is best for my baby daughter” because “there’s no outcomes at the end of this where I take home a healthy baby girl.”
Nikki Haley, who suspended her presidential campaign this week, was interviewed about her thoughts on the Cox case. Unfortunately, the misinformed Haley responded, “When you have a mom whose baby has died, and she’s at twenty weeks and she is holding that baby, the fact that she had to leave the state to deal with that, should tell Texas, “you’ve gotta go back and fix that law.”
Kate Cox’ baby was not dead at the time she sought the abortion. While the baby’s prognosis was poor, Trisomy 18 is not the automatic death sentence it was even a few years ago, given advances in treatment. A 2021 study found that the survival to discharge rate of babies with Trisomy 18 increased from under 30% to over 80% in ten years, largely due to an increased rate of surgical interventions. Unfortunately, some hospitals have not kept up with the science and routinely tell parents their children are “incompatible with life,” urging hospice rather than medical care. Life Legal has received numerous calls from parents whose doctors categorically refuse to provide medical treatment to children with Trisomy 18.
A recent survey showed that over 60% of children diagnosed with Trisomy 18, Trisomy 13, and Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) were aborted solely because they would have been born with a disability. This is a tragic indictment of a culture that otherwise prides itself on being inclusive and tolerant.
We recognize that creating a culture of LIFE does not only involve legal protections for vulnerable children and adults. This is why we partner with like-minded organizations to provide comprehensive services to meet our clients’ unique needs, including caring for children with disabilities.