Kate Cox, a resident of Texas, was 20 weeks pregnant when she found out her child had developed Trisomy 18, an unfortunately fatal condition. Also called Edwards Syndrome, the unfortunate disease causes physical growth delays during fetal development and severe intellectual challenges if the fetus makes it past its first year. 

The condition poses severe health risks for a pregnant patient. Cox’s doctors cited that she was at high risk of hypertension, gestational diabetes, and infection as a direct result. In Cox’s individual diagnosis, her baby was likely to be stillborn, with doctors estimating its life expectancy would not surpass one week. Described by Nancy Northup, the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, as being “in and out of the emergency room,” Cox sought to protect her future fertility and health. 

As a result, she began fighting for a court order that would block Texas’ abortion bans in her specific case. On Thursday, December 7th, a state district judge granted this request. Shortly after, however, Texas’ Supreme Court paused the lower court’s order, and subsequently, on Monday, December 11th, the court decided the lower court must cancel their order. 

After Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, several states swiftly enacted trigger laws to ban abortion, Texas being one of them. While some states maintained the status quo, keeping abortion legal or imposing gestational restrictions, others, like Texas, implemented an outright ban with only a “medical emergency” as an exception determined by a doctor.

Cox has now decided she will travel out of state to get an abortion to protect both her physical and mental health. 

The question that arises is an important one. If Cox is prohibited from getting an abortion in Texas, who is allowed? With a clear and accurate diagnosis of Edward’s Syndrome, both doctors and the court knew her child’s unfortunate and inevitable fate along with the health risks Cox will face when forced to continue her pregnancy. Since this is the first lawsuit of its kind since the overturn, the verdict of this case will ultimately set a dangerous precedent for all women in Texas, as the court will most likely rule against struggling pregnant patients and align with their state law in the future.

Thankfully, Cox had the ability to travel to another state to receive the necessary procedure. But this is not the case for all pregnant women. Many women do not have cars or lack the support to be able to safely travel out of state. In this situation, they would be forced to endure the health risks and trauma the pregnancy may bring. As a country that prides itself upon the individual value of its citizens, is this something we support? Are these “exceptions” really applicable if Cox was prohibited from receiving necessary healthcare? 

We must think collectively and examine this dire issue from all perspectives. By denying a woman in a similar situation the necessary healthcare to protect her future fertility and physical health, are we doing our duty to protect our citizens from harm? The blunt answer is no, we are not. The medical exceptions that would allow abortion in these states are too vague and too harsh, ultimately putting women in dangerous and health-threatening situations with no help.