The China Mail - Texas top court hears case challenging abortion ban for medical emergencies

USD -
AED 3.67325
AFN 64.00012
ALL 83.249902
AMD 377.160266
ANG 1.790083
AOA 916.999544
ARS 1382.482041
AUD 1.451284
AWG 1.80125
AZN 1.690528
BAM 1.70594
BBD 2.013154
BDT 122.637848
BGN 1.709309
BHD 0.377494
BIF 2964
BMD 1
BND 1.290401
BOB 6.906447
BRL 5.200986
BSD 0.999512
BTN 95.111495
BWP 13.788472
BYN 2.972354
BYR 19600
BZD 2.010179
CAD 1.393425
CDF 2285.000073
CHF 0.800225
CLF 0.023474
CLP 926.870302
CNY 6.894697
CNH 6.892355
COP 3688.49
CRC 464.734923
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 95.874993
CZK 21.2613
DJF 177.719572
DKK 6.470175
DOP 60.099841
DZD 133.051034
EGP 54.524277
ERN 15
ETB 157.049461
EUR 0.86603
FJD 2.23975
FKP 0.758039
GBP 0.755165
GEL 2.689525
GGP 0.758039
GHS 11.000063
GIP 0.758039
GMD 74.000212
GNF 8774.999808
GTQ 7.64789
GYD 209.174328
HKD 7.84115
HNL 26.59771
HRK 6.525096
HTG 131.185863
HUF 333.154498
IDR 16942
ILS 3.15655
IMP 0.758039
INR 93.611801
IQD 1310
IRR 1315874.999939
ISK 124.179955
JEP 0.758039
JMD 158.129555
JOD 0.708995
JPY 158.866011
KES 130.000338
KGS 87.450064
KHR 4010.000495
KMF 428.49797
KPW 899.974671
KRW 1509.570208
KWD 0.30953
KYD 0.832908
KZT 476.211659
LAK 21950.000494
LBP 89550.000158
LKR 315.318459
LRD 183.67498
LSL 17.069533
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 6.404992
MAD 9.342498
MDL 17.701369
MGA 4178.000272
MKD 53.370568
MMK 2099.498084
MNT 3571.008867
MOP 8.070843
MRU 40.109977
MUR 47.120075
MVR 15.470276
MWK 1737.000135
MXN 17.94928
MYR 4.048971
MZN 63.949726
NAD 17.070009
NGN 1385.219965
NIO 36.730426
NOK 9.71115
NPR 152.178217
NZD 1.74294
OMR 0.38451
PAB 0.999507
PEN 3.496015
PGK 4.389687
PHP 60.444498
PKR 279.195535
PLN 3.717025
PYG 6474.685228
QAR 3.643974
RON 4.416598
RSD 101.705988
RUB 81.299329
RWF 1460
SAR 3.752979
SBD 8.042037
SCR 13.978839
SDG 601.000217
SEK 9.47405
SGD 1.28686
SHP 0.750259
SLE 24.54987
SLL 20969.510825
SOS 571.477898
SRD 37.374026
STD 20697.981008
STN 21.725
SVC 8.746053
SYP 110.555055
SZL 17.070378
THB 32.635007
TJS 9.580319
TMT 3.51
TND 2.930162
TOP 2.40776
TRY 44.444495
TTD 6.790468
TWD 31.952499
TZS 2588.310957
UAH 43.911606
UGX 3762.887497
UYU 40.550736
UZS 12195.498607
VES 473.27785
VND 26340
VUV 120.343344
WST 2.769273
XAF 572.15615
XAG 0.013318
XAU 0.000214
XCD 2.70255
XCG 1.801363
XDR 0.710952
XOF 570.499053
XPF 104.049712
YER 238.649631
ZAR 16.946501
ZMK 9001.196617
ZMW 19.105686
ZWL 321.999592
  • RYCEF

    0.7600

    15.05

    +5.05%

  • RBGPF

    -13.5000

    69

    -19.57%

  • CMSC

    -0.4028

    21.9

    -1.84%

  • RELX

    0.4000

    33.15

    +1.21%

  • GSK

    0.9600

    55.19

    +1.74%

  • AZN

    3.3400

    197.22

    +1.69%

  • BTI

    0.2100

    58.47

    +0.36%

  • RIO

    4.4700

    93.29

    +4.79%

  • VOD

    0.3200

    15.02

    +2.13%

  • NGG

    0.9100

    84.6

    +1.08%

  • BCC

    0.9100

    75.86

    +1.2%

  • CMSD

    -0.4000

    22.1

    -1.81%

  • JRI

    0.3800

    12.3

    +3.09%

  • BCE

    0.0100

    25.24

    +0.04%

  • BP

    -0.3500

    47

    -0.74%

Texas top court hears case challenging abortion ban for medical emergencies
Texas top court hears case challenging abortion ban for medical emergencies / Photo: © AFP

Texas top court hears case challenging abortion ban for medical emergencies

The Texas Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case brought on behalf of some two dozen women who were denied abortions even though they had serious complications with their pregnancies that were in some cases life-threatening.

Text size:

The lawsuit, filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights in March, argues that the way medical exceptions are defined under the conservative state's law is confusing, stoking fear among doctors and causing a "health crisis."

"While there is technically a medical exception to the bans, no one knows what it means," argued Molly Duane, the group's attorney, adding that "physicians are terrified" to grant one.

In August a lower court found in favor of the plaintiffs, confirming the women should have received abortion care.

But the Texas Attorney General's office immediately filed an appeal, staying Judge Jessica Mangrum's temporary order, which said doctors can use their own medical judgment to determine when to terminate pregnancies in such situations.

The fate of Mangrum's order is now up to the Texas Supreme Court, made up of elected judges who serve six-year terms.

All its members are currently Republicans.

The court could decide to throw the case out, ending it before a trial on merits is set to proceed in March 2024. Or they could allow the case to proceed with or without the near-total ban blocked. A decision isn't expected for at least several weeks.

- Harrowing testimony -

Women involved in the case gave harrowing court testimony in July.

Amanda Zurawski, after whom the initial case is named, said she was denied an abortion even though her water broke very early in her pregnancy, meaning a miscarriage was inevitable.

Zurawski said her doctor told her that she "couldn't intervene, because the baby's heart was still beating and inducing labor would have been considered an illegal abortion."

Zurawski went into life-threatening septic shock and the fetus was stillborn.

The suit is the first brought on behalf of women denied abortions since the US Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to the procedure in June 2022.

Texas physicians found guilty of providing abortions face up to 99 years in prison, fines of up to $100,000 and the revocation of their medical license.

A state "trigger" ban went into effect when Roe v. Wade was overturned, prohibiting abortions even in cases of rape or incest. Texas also has a law that allows private citizens to sue anyone who performs or aids an abortion.

The Zurawski lawsuit asks the court to create a binding interpretation of the "medical emergency" exception in the law and argues that physicians should be allowed to exercise "good faith" judgments on the qualifying conditions for an abortion, rather than leaving this to state lawmakers.

The Texas Attorney General's office, on the other hand, says the measures sought by the complaint would effectively nullify its bans.

The medical exception proposed by the plaintiffs "would, by design, swallow the rule," its lawyers argued in their written response.

"It would, for example, permit abortions for pregnant females with medical conditions ranging from a headache to feelings of depression," the response states.

B.Chan--ThChM