The court ruled against 20 women who said they were denied medically necessary abortions, saying the medical exceptions in the law were broad enough.
“A physician who tells a patient, ‘Your life is threatened by a complication that has arisen during your pregnancy, and you may die, or there is a serious risk you will suffer substantial physical impairment unless an abortion is performed,’ and in the same breath states ‘but the law won’t allow me to provide an abortion in these circumstances’ is simply wrong in that legal assessment,” the court wrote.
But when Hall considered carrying this high-risk, no-reward pregnancy through to the end, she felt like she was “losing my mind. I would consider what I experienced that weekend a medical emergency.” An Austin judge sided with the plaintiffs and granted an injunction, ruling that the attorney general should not be able to prosecute doctors who, in their “good faith judgment” terminate a pregnancy that presents a risk of infection; if the fetus will not survive after child birth; or when the pregnant patient has a condition that requires regular, invasive treatment.
While thecourt deliberated, Cox’s condition deteriorated to the point that she needed to travel out-of-state to get an abortion, her lawyers said. The trial court ruled in the injunction that a doctor should be allowed to perform an abortion when they deemed it necessary in their “good faith judgment.” Friday’s ruling found the trial judge overstepped, and said the way the law is written—allowing abortions based on a doctor’s “reasonable medical judgment”—is clear enough.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: FoxNews - 🏆 9. / 87 Read more »
Source: cbsaustin - 🏆 595. / 51 Read more »
Source: TheCut - 🏆 720. / 51 Read more »
Source: WGAL - 🏆 331. / 59 Read more »
Source: latimes - 🏆 11. / 82 Read more »
Source: axios - 🏆 302. / 63 Read more »