The Texas Supreme Court ruled against Kate Cox, the pregnant mother who sought permission to obtain an emergency abortion, on Monday.

“These laws reflect the policy choice that the Legislature has made, and the courts must respect that choice,” the court’s seven-page ruling read. The court found that Cox’s doctor, Dr. Damla Karsan, had “asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s condition poses the risks the exception requires.”

Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant and a mother of two, had filed a lawsuit against Texas over its restrictive abortion bans. Her fetus was found to have a fatal condition known as Trisomy 18. The baby has no chance of survival, but under state law, there are only two options available to Cox: a vaginal delivery, or a C-section. Either option would risk her life or her ability to have children in the future.

Earlier on Monday, Cox’s lawyers said she was forced to flee the state to get medical care.

  • paysrenttobirds
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    What will be the ramifications of her fleeing the state? Can they be avoided if she never comes back? This is disgusting. They want her to suffer and risk so much for a dead baby.

    • 520@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Since federal laws aren’t being broken, she can avoid criminal consequences if she doesn’t return. However anyone who assists her can be legally on the hook civilly

      • paysrenttobirds
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can you be fined for underage drinking in another country when you return to the US? Is this kind of law valid that things you do in another jurisdiction where they are legal can be prosecuted at home? I’m really curious.

        • TechyDad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Typically, you can’t be prosecuted at a state level for crimes you committed out of state. Otherwise, any state with anti-gambling laws could arrest people returning from Vegas vacations.

          The red states are trying to get around this with their “it’s a civil offense to help someone leave the state to get an abortion” and “it’s a crime to use public roads to have an abortion out of state,” but these laws have tenuous footing at best.

          Still, I fully expect some red states to pass laws banning anyone who lives in their state from going to another state for an abortion. Republicans don’t care about what’s legal or constitutional - only about what furthers their power over people.

      • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is so obviously untrue it’s insane. How did this pass anyone’s sniff test?

        A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

        • Article IV of the U.S. Constitution
        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          True, however states cannot criminally charge people for actions performed in other states.

          So Texas cannot make it a crime to go get an abortion in California, for example. They cannot make it a crime to travel to California for that purpose either.

          That’s why they’re trying to make these things civil offenses, which aren’t covered under the constitution clause you quoted.