Texas Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Medical Emergency Exception to State Abortion Bans
- June 07, 2024
The Texas Supreme Court rejected May 31 a lawsuit arguing the “medical emergency” exception to the state’s abortion bans was too narrow and required further clarification.
The Center for Reproductive Rights filed the lawsuit in March 2023 on behalf of 20 women who faced pregnancy complications and were denied abortion care and two Texas obstetrician-gynecologists. The complaint argued that medical professionals are delaying or refusing to provide necessary obstetrical care to pregnant people in the face of potential criminal and civil liability, stiff fines, and revocation of their medical licenses under Texas’ abortion bans, despite exceptions for protecting the life and health of the pregnant person.
But the high court held the existing exception—which permits physicians to proceed with an abortion “to save the woman’s life or major bodily function, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment and with the woman’s informed consent”—did not run afoul of the state's constitution.
In its unanimous ruling, the high court vacated a temporary injunction put in place by Travis County District Court Judge Jessica Mangrum that enjoined the state from enforcing the abortion bans against physicians who, in their “good faith judgment,” perform the procedure on patients experiencing emergent medical conditions, which was defined to include loss of fertility, that make continuing a pregnancy unsafe for the pregnant person, or where the fetus is unlikely to survive the pregnancy and sustain life after birth. Zurawski v. State of Texas, No. D-1-GN-23-000968 (Tex. Dist. Ct. Travis Cty. Aug. 4, 2023). The injunction was put on hold after the state appealed the ruling.
The existing exception sets forth an objective “reasonable medical judgment” standard rather than the subjective “good faith judgment” adopted by the lower court, the Texas Supreme Court said. Such a change would require amending the law, not interpreting it, the high court added.
The high court also took issue with defining a “life-threatening physical condition” to include any “unsafe” pregnancy or where the fetus was unlikely to survive or sustain life after birth.
“Because the trial court’s order opens the door to permit abortion to address any pregnancy risk, it is not a faithful interpretation of the law,” the high court said. Current law also “does not permit abortion based solely on a diagnosis that an unborn child has an abnormal condition, even a life-limiting one,” the high court added in vacating the injunction.
“This outrageous ruling clearly demonstrates that Texas’s ‘medical exceptions’ to its extreme abortion bans just don’t work,” said Molly Duane, senior staff attorney at the Center. “This ruling means that pregnant Texans will continue to suffer because they can’t access the medical care they desperately need.”
Texas’ trigger ban, which went into effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, makes performing an abortion a felony. Medical professionals who violate the ban also could lose their medical license and be subject to civil penalties of not less than $100,000.
Senate Bill 8, enacted in 2021, effectively prohibits abortion beyond the point that an embryo or fetus has detectable cardiac activity, typically around six weeks. The law allows individuals to sue those who “aid or abet” abortions for statutory damages of not less than $10,000.
Texas v. Zurawski, No. 23-0629 (Tex. May 31, 2024).