The #Texas #abortion case has been badly misreported, with reporters once again saying the exact opposite of what was in a ruling.
Texas's law does not prevent abortion in the case as it's been described, so it was always strange to hear that it was being blocked.
Well, the court spelled this out in its ruling, over and over in fact, trying to say it nine different ways so that there is no mistaking it. But the press misframed it nonetheless.
For example:
> "A pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a lifesaving abortion in Texas. Our ruling today does not block a life saving abortion in this very case if a physician determines that one is needed under the appropriate legal standard, using reasonable medical judgment."
@volkris If the law allows abortion in this case, why did SCOTX say the abortion was not allowed? Why did Paxton threaten the doctor if they performed the procedure?
@SarahBreau SCOTX said the opposite, that the abortion WAS allowed in such a case.
And SCOTX said so over and over in its ruling, trying to avoid people misinterpreting their ruling.
As for Paxton, I don't know or care what he said. If he threatened the doctor illegally then he needs to be called out on that.
I imagine he was grandstanding for political reasons.
@volkris SCOTX said that this case did not meet the "medically necessary" threshold because they didn't like how the doctor worded the description of the case. My understanding is that if Cox has stayed in Texas and somehow ended her pregnancy, SCOTX would consider her to be in violation of the law. I just can't find any evidence for your reading of this case.
@SarahBreau I'll link to the case again if you'd like to read it. Yes, there has been a ton of misreporting and misunderstanding about this case.
SCOTX stressed that it was up to doctors, not courts, to determine whether an abortion was medically necessary. If the doctor found that it was then the court wouldn't have any legal authority to consider her in violation.
And the court tried to emphasize this over and over again. Another quick example:
"If Ms. Cox’s circumstances are, or have become, those that satisfy the statutory exception, no court order is needed."
As of the time of the ruling Cox had already left the state, so for her personally it was moot, but we should be emphasizing this ruling as it highlighted that doctors and not courts are to make these decisions.
@volkris Further, in the other abortion case, the state brought in a doctor to challenge the diagnosing doctor's opinion, so saying "it is up to the doctor" is just false. The state has implicitly asserted that loss of fertility is not the same as loss of major bodily function, so yes, the law is STILL unclear.
@SarahBreau It sounds like you're confusing branches of government.
Yeah the executive branch can stage whatever little stunts it wants, but the law is the law, and the court is pointing out that it's up to the doctor no matter what political stunts the governor might want to stage.
As per the law it is up to the doctor. And the court emphasizes over and over that it is up to the doctor.
And as the court emphasizes it doesn't even matter if the state brings in a doctor to challenge to diagnosing doctor's opinion in court because the diagnosing doctor doesn't need permission from the court in the first place.
