Texas Tax-Exempt Hospitals & Charity Care: Surprisingly Progressive

In 1985 -- one year before Congress added EMTALA to Medicare's Conditions of Participation -- Texas became the first state in the country to enact a prohibition against patient-dumping, the practice of for-profit hospitals to transfer unfunded emergency patients to local public hospitals. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 311.022. When a patient needs emergency medical treatment, the consequences of transfer-related delays could be dire, including death. See this 1985 N.Y. Times story:

(click image to enlarge)

This isn't the only progressive healthcare law in Texas. For decades now, we have also required nonprofit hospitals to provide a certain minimum amount of charity care, both to maintain its nonprofit status (Tex. Health & Safety Code, ch. 311(D)) and to qualify for tax-exempt status (Tex. Tax Code § 11.1801). If a nonprofit hospital meets any one of three measures of required charity care, it gets its exemption:

(A)  charity care and government-sponsored indigent health care (e.g., Medicaid] are provided at a level which is reasonable in relation to the community needs, as determined through the community needs assessment, the available resources of the hospital or hospital system, and the tax-exempt benefits received by the hospital or hospital system; 

(B)  charity care and government-sponsored indigent health care are provided in an amount equal to at least 100 percent of the hospital's or hospital system's tax-exempt benefits, excluding federal income tax;  or 

(C)  charity care and community benefits are provided in a combined amount equal to at least five percent of the hospital's or hospital system's net patient revenue, provided that charity care and government-sponsored indigent health care are provided in an amount equal to at least four percent of net patient revenue. 

The statutes aren't perfect. They are written so that, with enough uncompensated care provided to Medicaid patients, a hospital (in theory) could meet any of the three standards with no charity care whatsoever. In addition,  with careful planning most nonprofit community hospitals can meet one of these standards, and both statutes provide for fairly generous exceptions to the three measures. For example, a recent study concluded that nonprofit hospitals in Texas provide charity care at a level approximately equal to 60% of the value of their tax exemption. Part of the problem is the extremely limited enforcement procedures and budget. And the root of the entire problem is that very few health systems have the level of excess income to do more than put a dent in their community's need for charity care. Medicaid meets some of that need, but most state Medicaid programs are underfunded.

Health Care Fraud: Texas Style

On Oct. 15 a federal jury in Houston convicted the owner of a firm that operated 14 pharmacies, on fifteen counts including conspiracy to commit mail fraud, conspiracy to violate the anti-kickback statute, bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds, conspiracy to commit bribery, five counts of healthcare fraud, and six counts of money laundering, resulting in $160 million in fraudulent claims that were paid by Medicare. 

As described by the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas:

From 2014 through 2021, Mohamad Mokbel led a company called 4M Pharmaceuticals which operated 14 pharmacies with straw owners. The jury heard evidence that Mokbel illegally purchased thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, including their identification number, personal health and physician information. Mokbel targeted elderly diabetic patients who are dependent on diabetic testing supplies to manage their blood sugar levels. Mokbel paid $16 to $40 per Medicare beneficiary.  

To maximize reimbursements and without regard for medical necessity, Mokbel then directed 4M employees to use the Medicare beneficiaries’ patient data to run insurance claims to determine if Medicare or other insurance plans would cover and reimburse at a high rate for the topical creams, Omega-3 pills and other medications that Mokbel intended to sell through 4M pharmacies.

At Mokbel’s direction, 4M employees would then fax pre-filled prescription requests to the patients’ doctors appearing to be for diabetic testing supplies with topical creams added at the bottom. They also included false representations that the patient was requesting a 4M Pharmacy fill their medications. In reality, Mokbel had previously purchased the patient’s personal information, the patient had not selected a 4M Pharmacy and the patient was often unaware the request was being made on their behalf. 

Many doctors apparently took the representations in the fax at face value and did sign and send back the prefilled prescription requests to 4M. Mokbel’s call center in Houston and later in Egypt then contacted the patients and made false and misleading statements about the topical cream and their doctor’s order. Mokbel’s pharmacies then shipped out numerous topical creams, often on auto-refill, and excessively billed Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance plans. 

Mokbel made over $200 million as a result of the scheme. 

The money value of the fraud is considerably less than the record for Medicare fraud, but what caught my eye was the complexity of the scheme and the lineup of law-enforcement agencies involved in the case: Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Houston, the FBI, IRS Criminal Investigation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the Texas Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. This was a big, big deal for these investigators.

Texas Governor Abbott Weaponizes Charity Care

Uncompensated care is a serious issue that requires a serious response from serious politicians. On Thursday, rather than doing something to alleviate the crisis in Texas, Governor Greg Abbott chose to weaponize the issue in his ongoing battle with the Biden Administration over control of the Texas-Mexico border.

Texas's nonprofit and for-profit hospitals alike can be challenged by the volume of uncompensated care they provide. The federal Emergency Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires all hospitals that receive Medicare funds to provide emergency care without regard to the patient's ability to pay. Added to that, if the patient needs to be admitted as an in-patient in order to stabilize their emergency medical condition, the cost of the hospital's EMTALA obligation can really sky-rocket.

Add to that Texas's requirement that nonprofit hospitals must provide a certain amount of uncompensated care in order to maintain their nonprofit status as well as their state tax-exempt status. 

Beginning in 1954 a hospital's federal tax-exempt status required the provision of charity care to the extent of its financial ability, but that requirement ended in 1969. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) does require hospitals to provide charity care, though it does require tax-exempt hospitals to report on community needs, including uncompensated care, and on the hospital's own level of uncompensated care (26 USC § 501(r)). My hope is that the hospital reports, as well as the IRS summaries that the ACA required be sent to Congress, will result in the reinstatement of a charity-care requirement. Time will tell.

As a result of these state and federal rules, the distribution of uncompensated care is spread unevenly among hospitals across the state. There are some for-profit hospitals that report higher levels of uncompensated care than nonprofit providers. And among the nonprofit hospitals, the cost of charity care as a percentage of net revenues varies wildly. This is often a function of location. Residents of wealthier communities tend to have decent health insurance (and other assets to pay for care that is not covered by their insurance policies), while poorer communities have a higher percentage of uninsured and under-insured residents. 

The Affordable Care Act expanded insurance coverage, to be sure, but the uninsured rate in the U.S. is still hovering around 9%, slightly better than our poverty rate of around 11%. Texas's numbers aren't just higher than the national average; they are alarmingly, embarrassingly so. Poverty: 14% (33% higher than the national rate). Uninsured: 16.6% (about twice the national rate). If Texas cared about doing something to improve the health of our poorest residents, it could expand Medicaid eligibility (with matching federal dollars picking up the lion's share of the cost) with the stroke of a pen. 

For that to happen, we would need leaders who are serious about helping our uninsured poor population to get the health care they need. This past week, however, Gov. Abbott demonstrated his lack of seriousness and instead chose to turn uncompensated care into a political football in his on-going battle with the federal government over control of our border with Mexico. On Thursday (Aug. 8) the governor issued an executive order calling upon hospitals to report their costs of providing uncompensated care to patients who are in the country illegally. Abbott's plan is clear: 

"Texans should not have to shoulder the burden of financially supporting medical care for illegal immigrants," Mr. Abbott said in an Aug. 8 news release. "Texas will hold the Biden-Harris Administration accountable for the consequences of their open border policies, and we will fight to ensure that they pay back Texas for their costly and dangerous policies."

Political point: scored. Human suffering: unchanged. 

U.S. DOJ Closes Gun Show Loophole; Judge Kacsmaryk (Of Course) Blocks Rule (Of Course) in 4 States

As I have noted before, firearm violence is a public-health disaster. The Justice Department has taken a major step in the effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals. As reported by the Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation (emphasis added):

In a move that officials touted as the most significant increase in American gun regulation in decades, the Justice Department has finalized rules to close a loophole that allowed people to sell firearms online, at gun shows and at other informal venues without conducting background checks on those who purchase them. Vice President Harris and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland celebrated the rules and said they would keep firearms out of the hands of potentially violent people who are not legally allowed to own guns. (Stein, 4/11)

I'm a little late to the party on this development, but this is a big enough deal to warrant paying some attention.

That's the good news. 

Then there's the bad news (from The Hill (6/12/24):

A federal judge in Texas blocked the Biden administration’s attempt to close the so-called gun show loophole on Wednesday, expanding a prior temporary ruling to impact Texas, Louisiana, Utah and Mississippi.

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled last month that the requirement to run a background check before purchasing a firearm could not go into effect in Texas. His final ruling Wednesday expands that injunction to the three other states.

The judge is the ever-ready, go-to federal jurist in Amarillo for conservative litigants from around the country who are keen to block the Biden Administration's reforms. (Bloomberg Law, May 9, 2024)

Members of Congress have expressed concern about the steady stream of anti-Administration rulings coming out of Amarillo in favor of far-flung litigants, usually with the flimsiest of connections to the Northern District of Texas. But so far, the Northern District judges have rebuffed suggestions to reform their procedures for assigning cases.

The Cruelty of Texas's Abortion Ban (SB 8)

A recent MSNBC News report (posted July 11, 2024, 4:19 PM CDT) illustrates the casual cruelty of Texas Senate Bill 8, which bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectable except when continuing the pregnancy presents a threat to the life or major bodily function of the pregnant person.

When Samantha Casiano of East Texas found out she was pregnant with her fifth child, she was ecstatic. But at a 20-week ultrasound, she received shocking news. Her baby was diagnosed with anencephaly, a rare and fatal condition that prevents the skull and brain from fully forming. . . .

“I was told that it meant that my daughter was incompatible with life. And I wouldn’t be adding another little human to our family. It was really hard to hear that. It felt like it was a dream -- a really, really bad dream, Casiano, 30, recounted. . . . 

“Just imagine yourself waking up every morning, knowing that your daughter was going to die. You can feel her kick and move, but she’s going to die. So you have to plan her funeral while she’s inside of you,” said Casiano. “And that’s probably the hardest thing any mother has to go through…It was traumatizing and hard.. Just thinking about it now is just me makes my stomach hurt. And I was forced to go through it. It was torture.”

Torture. C'mon, Legislature. Think about it.

Texas is not alone in its lack of humanity. According to the authoritative Guttmacher Institute, only D.C. and 9 states do not restrict abortion based on gestational duration. The remaining 41 states either ban abortions with very limited exceptions (14 states) or impose a gestational ban of varying lengths:

• 6 weeks (3 states)
• 12 weeks (2 states)
• 15 weeks (1 state)
• 18-23 weeks (5 states)
• 24-26 weeks (16 states)

And as the Institute says about these gestational bans: "Anyone denied abortion access in their state must either overcome the logistical and financial hurdles of traveling out of state, navigate a self-managed abortion or carry an unwanted pregnancy to term."

The Casiano case is an example: "Casiano said she was unable to travel outside of the state for an abortion due to financial and logistical constraints. So, she was forced to go to term with her baby." 

Torture. C'mon, Texas Voters. Think about it.

Infant Mortality in Texas -- Already High -- Increased After SB 8 and Dobbs

A new study in JAMA Pediatrics (June 24, 2024) (abstract here, apparently free, at least for a while) finds that infant and neonatal deaths in Texas increased 12.9% after Texas banned nearly all abortions after an embryonic heartbeat could be detected (usually around the sixth week of gestation). The Texas law in question is Senate Bill 8, passed in 2021, and its restrictions are legally unassailable after SCOTUS's 2022 decision in Dobbs to wipe Roe v. Wade off the books, which eliminated federal constitutional protection for the right to choose to and a pregnancy. 

Before SB 8 was enacted, Texas accounted for slightly more than 10% of all neonatal and infant deaths in the United States, about 15% more than Texas's 8.7% percent of the total U.S, population. Significantly, the study observes that "[d]escriptive statistics by cause of death showed that infant deaths attributable to congenital anomalies in 2022 increased more for Texas (22.9% increase) but not the rest of the US (3.1% decrease)."

The study cites the increase in infant and neonatal mortality as one of the "unintended consequences" of SB 8, which is debatable if you believe that persons (including members of a legislative body) presumably intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions. Banning abortions for all intents and purposes guaranteed an increase in the number of fetuses with fatal anomalies and other conditions incompatible with life that would be carried to viability and then die. Anyone in the Texas legislature who didn't see this coming doesn't belong in public office. The same goes for any legislator who saw this coming and voted for SB 8 anyway.

The results of Texas's cruel abortion law -- cited as "important unintended consequences" by the authors of the study -- include "trauma to families and medical cost as a result of increases in infant mortality." Trauma to literally hundreds of families who have been harmed in this particular manner by SB 8. The impact on foster care has been significant. The economic burden for many families produces additional trauma. The cascade of effects of our laws is, in a word, ghastly.

JAMA: Texas Medical Board Dropped the Ball with its Abortion "Exceptions" Rule

The authors of an opinion piece in the Journal of the American Medical Association (published on-line today) offer their critique of the "non-guidance guidance" concerning emergency exceptions to the Texas ban on abortions. In a previous post, I expressed disappointment with the "cut-and-paste job" that offered nothing of value to guide physicians who need to decide whether a patient is experiencing the sort of medical crisis that would satisfy Texas's vague exception for an "emergency." 

As the JAMA authors point out, the rule does add onerous reporting requirements with potentially lethal consequences:

"Although labeled as mere documentation, each of these requirements potentially heightens the danger of criminal prosecution for clinicians working in already challenging circumstances. A patient’s condition might generally indicate a risk to her life. But pointing to this rule, a prosecutor or complainant before the Texas Board might argue that a physician did not exercise reasonable medical judgment, because they did not obtain a second opinion, attempt every alternative, or seek transfer. The Board’s proposal could invite—rather than ward off—second-guessing clinical decisions in legal proceedings."

The authors' conclusion seems unassailable: "Like other Texas institutions, the Texas Medical Board was unwilling to provide guidance to the medical profession. . . . With a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, physicians hesitate to provide standard-of-care medicine, and the steady stream of patients denied care continues, and increases."

Texas Medical Board Publishes Proposed Rules Re: Exceptions to Texas's Abortion Ban

It took a strongly worded "suggestion" from the Texas Supreme Court (in its "know-nothing" opinion in the Kate Cox case [HealthLawBlog 12/12/23], but the TMB has finally published a proposed rule that provides some detail about the medical exceptions to the state's ban on abortions.

• Notice and Statement of TMB Chair
• Proposed Rule Amendment
• Official Form for Submission of Public Comments (optional but preferred method)

Most of the proposed rule is a cut-and-paste job, providing definitions of key terms such as:

1. abortion (copied from the Abortion Facilities Licensing law)
2. ectopic pregnancy (same)
3. reasonable medical judgment (copied from one of statutory bans on abortion)
4. medical emergency (same)
5. major bodily function (Texas Labor Code)

For 1, 2, and 5, the proposed rule would make clear that these definitions in other Texas codes apply to the medical exceptions to the abortion bans, which is guidance of a sort.

The remainder of the proposed rule describes the documentation that must be completed if an abortion is going to be performed when one of the exceptions applies as well as "the procedures that the Board will utilize in the event a complaint is received."

Biden's State of the Union Address: 13 Health Care Take-aways

Becker's Hospital Review takes a look at "13 healthcare takeaways" from President Biden's State of the Union address last evening. They include:

1. Expanding Medicare's drug price negotiation scope
2. Limiting drug costs
3. Expanding rebate requirement
4. Closing Medicaid coverage gap [for 10 states, including Texas, that haven't expanded eligibility]
5. Capping the cost of insulin
6. Abortion access
7. COVID-19
8. Affordable Care Act
9. Women's health
10. Taxes
11. Gun violence
12. PACT Act [Resources for Veterans]
13. ARPA-H (Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health ) 

JAMA On-line: Scorn for Approach of Texas Supreme Court and AG in Cases Involving Exceptions to Abortion Ban

In an excellent on-line (and free) commentary in JAMA (Jan. 22, 2024), three Harvard authors ask the question: "Whose Responsibility Is It to Define Exceptions in Abortion Bans?" (Disclosure: One of the authors, Louise King, M.D., J.D., is a friend and former colleague.)

The context for this question is not surprising:

Two Texas court cases were filed in late 2023 requesting clarification of the scope of the life exception. In the first case, In re State of Texas, the Texas Supreme Court indicated that clinicians or the Texas Medical Board have responsibility for defining that exception. In the second case, State [of Texas] v Zurawski, the Texas attorney general suggested during oral arguments that the scope would be defined through medical malpractice litigation.

In short, both the Texas Supreme Court and the AG punted on the essential and inescapable issue of the scope of "life exception" to Texas's abortion ban.

Is that a problem?

At first glance, the Texas Supreme Court and attorney general may seem to defer to the expertise of clinicians and the medical system for when abortions are necessary to save a patient’s life. But upon closer analysis, these proposed ways to define the exception’s scope are neither workable nor constitutional. Putting the burden of defining a crime on the person who may commit it violates the US Constitution. Demanding that patients be injured and sue for malpractice to clarify a criminal statute is beyond draconian.

Legislating medical care means clinicians could risk prosecution if they act according to their ethics and training and follow the standard of care. But if they decline to provide care out of fear of legal consequences, they risk injuring a patient and facing a potential malpractice claim. It is for these very reasons that professional societies like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association argue strongly against all legislation that interferes with the patient-clinician relationship.2 Texas and other states that criminalize abortion should consider the tremendously harmful effect that comes from interfering in clinical decision-making. 

This short but compelling commentary is worth reading in its entirety. It offers a fine illustration of the hall of mirrors created by the Texas legislature, Supreme Court, and Attorney General. 

 

Ruth Marcus: Calling Out the Texas Supreme Court for its Opinion in the Kate Cox Case

Ruth Marcus is one of the most acute observers of political cultural and political life in this country. Now add legal commentary to her toolkit (she's a 1984 graduate of Harvard Law School). There's no better example than her column in the Washington Post eviscerating the Texas Supreme Court's opinion in the Kate Cox case. There's a paywall, but there may also be a quota of free articles that non-subscribers can tap into. If not, here are a few highlights:

• "Women of Texas, now you know: The state’s abortion law will not protect you in the case of a medical emergency. Not only will the state’s attorney general come after you, the all-Republican, Texas Supreme Court will contort itself to find that your situation doesn’t constitute an emergency that would allow an abortion to proceed. Never mind what your doctors say — courts know best, even as they purport to be deferring to medical judgment."
• "The court’s brief ruling — seven pages almost entirely devoid of legal reasoning — is a masterpiece of intellectual dishonesty masquerading as judicial deference."
• "[T]he craft of judging is about applying the law to specific facts, and here is where the Texas justices fell woefully short. The court’s opinion never explains why it is not a reasonable medical judgment that abortion is advisable in this situation, in which Cox would otherwise be forced to continue with a doomed pregnancy and incur the risk of a repeat C-section or uterine rupture from vaginal delivery. It acts as if Cox’s obstetrician hadn’t determined that an abortion would be in her best medical interest, when in fact she had found just that. It all but writes the provision about impairment of a major bodily function out of the law."
• "Theoretical exceptions are cold comfort to real women in excruciating circumstances, and without hope of getting the care they desperately need."

Harsh but fair. 

Kaiser: Who Decides When a Patient Qualifies for an Abortion Ban Exception? Doctors vs. the Courts

 Here's a thoughtful brief from the Kaiser Family Foundation on abortion-ban exceptions around the country.

It starts with a quick summary of the Texas Supreme Court's opinion in the Kate Cox case and follows with some observations that somehow escaped the attention of Texas's high court:

• "The case in Texas highlights the impossible situation that many doctors and patients find themselves in when faced with a pregnancy that may qualify for an exception."
• "[I]f doctors are prosecuted for providing abortions under an exception, the courts will nonetheless end up determining whether the abortions qualified for an exception and physicians will still be vulnerable to having their judgment second-guessed by judges and juries. Unable to get a determination from a court ahead of providing care, yet vulnerable to prosecution after providing care, doctors and their patients caught in a 'Catch-22.' In this case, Ms. Cox was reportedly able to leave the state to receive the abortion care her doctor believed she needed, but others may not have the resources to travel out of state to get medically-indicated care."
• "All 20 states with abortion and gestation bans currently in effect contain exceptions to 'prevent the death' or 'preserve the life' of the pregnant person. Like Texas, these exceptions are not clear how much risk of death or how close to death a pregnant patient may need to be for the exception to apply, and the determination is not explicitly up to the physician treating the pregnant patient."
• "The Texas abortion ban specifies that the physician must determine that the abortion is necessary based on their 'reasonable medical judgement.' This standard leaves physicians in a legally vulnerable situation and understandably reluctant to certify a pregnancy as qualifying for a life or health exception. This reluctance stems from the concern of being found guilty of violating the law if the court relies on the testimony of other medical experts that say that the treating physician didn’t meet the standard for “'reasonable medical judgement.'"

The brief includes an interactive that shows the exceptions for life, health, rape/incest, and fatal fetal anomalies in states that have them:

Texas Supreme Court Puts an Exclamation Point on Kate Cox's Doomed Quest for Reproductive Health Care in Texas

Late yesterday (12/11) the Supreme Court of Texas issued a seven-page per curiam opinion that reversed the trial court's order in the action Kate Cox brought against the State of Texas. 

The trial court enjoined state officials from enforcing statutory abortion prohibitions based upon the "good faith belief" of Ms. Cox's physician that "continuing the pregnancy puts her at high risk for severe complications threatening her life and future fertility, including uterine rupture and hysterectomy" [Complaint ¶ 1]. A reasonable interpretation of this language would conclude that Ms. Cox's pregnancy "places [her] at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced," the statutory exception to Texas's abortion prohibition., TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 170A.002(b)(2). That is not the Supreme Court's interpretation.

Ms. Cox's physician's "good faith belief" is presumably based upon two subsidiary considerations: [1] a medical conclusion based upon reasonable medical judgment combined with [2] uncertainty as to the scope of the vague language of the statutory exception. There is no other way to read ¶¶ 138-139 of the Complaint:

138. Dr. Karsan has met Ms. Cox, reviewed her medical records, and believes in good faith, exercising her best medical judgment, that a D&E abortion is medically recommended for Ms. Cox. 

139. It is also Dr. Karsan’s good faith belief and medical recommendation that the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to Texas’s abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox’s circumstances, as Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from her current pregnancy that places her at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of her reproductive functions if a D&E abortion is not performed. 

[emphasis added]

This was not good enough for the Supreme Court, though:

Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a “life-threatening physical condition” or that, in Dr. Karsan’s reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires. . . .  The exception requires a doctor to decide whether Ms. Cox’s difficulties pose such risks [i.e., to the pregnant woman's life or substantial bodily function].  Dr. Karsan asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s condition poses the risks the exception requires.    

Does the outcome in this case really turn on a physician's attestation that she exercised reasonable medical judgment? If the verified petition in this case doesn't meet that standard, does the Court require three "magic words" to establish a woman's right to necessary medical care? Is there a difference between "best medical judgment" and "reasonable medical judgment"? The Court writes that "[a]  pregnant woman does not need a court order" to get an abortion in Texas. But if the scope of the statutory exception is uncertain, does the Court seriously expect physicians to risk a 99-year prison sentence and a $100,000 fine without first obtaining a court's authorization? 

And on the vagueness argument, the Court concludes:

The Texas Medical Board, however, can do more to provide guidance in response to any confusion that currently prevails.  Each of the three branches of government has a distinct role, and while the judiciary cannot compel executive branch entities to do their part, it is obvious that the legal process works more smoothly when they do.

The Legislature pretty clearly intended the in terrorem effect that SB 8 and post-Dobbs enactments have produced. And in terrorem effects work best when the law is vague, its application is potentially broad, and the penalties for being wrong are draconian. Unfortunately, the Court's opinion in the Cox case -- whether wittingly or not -- plays into this cynical strategy. 

Kate Cox Leaves Texas to Obtain an Abortion

I put up a series of posts last week to illustrate the tortuous path taken by Kate Cox in order to terminate a pregnancy that posed a threat to her health and future reproductive prospects. By the end of the week, the Texas Attorney General was threatening civil and criminal action against her doctor and any hospital that allowed the procedure to be performed there AND the Texas Supreme Court stayed the order of a Texas trial judge that was based on the judge's conclusion that Ms. Cox fell within the statutory exception to Texas's abortion ban.

As reported this afternoon by the Washington Post, the New York Times, NBC, ABC, and the Guardian, Ms. Cox has left the state to obtain the abortion that has so far been denied her in her home state: 

“Kate desperately wanted to be able to get care where she lives and recover at home surrounded by family,” Nancy Northup, the chief executive for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which was representing Ms. Cox in her case, said in a statement on X. “While Kate had the ability to leave the state, most people do not, and a situation like this could be a death sentence.”

Ms. Cox describes last week's legal developments as "hellish." It's a fit description of a society that meets a very human loss such as hers with motions, briefs, opinions, orders, and sabre-rattling by an indicted Attorney General. It reminds me of Grant Gilmore's great quote from The Ages of American Law (1977):

Law reflects, but in no sense determines the moral worth of a society…. The better the society, the less law there will be. In Heaven, there will be no law, and the lion will lie down with the lamb…. The worse the society, the more law there will be. In Hell, there will be nothing but law, and due process will be meticulously observed.

Unfortunately, last week was Kate Cox's introduction to hell. 

Texas Supreme Court Stays Trial Court's Abortion Order

The court entered an "administrative stay" pending review of the TxAG's request for mandamus in the Cox case. In almost any other case, this would be a routine, even benign, development. In this case, though, it's far from routine or benign.

• Kate Cox is entering her 21st week of pregnancy. She's not far from her third trimester, when  termination of a pregnancy will be considered a "late term" abortion and nearly impossible to obtain.
  
  
• Every delay increases the risk to Kate Cox's health, including her ability to have a child in the future. There is no such thing as "maintaining the status quo" in this case.
  
  
• This case vividly illustrated the human cost of a GOP-dominated legislature and Republican AG torning abortion into a political football. One can only hope that the all-GOP Supreme Court sees this case as the trial judge did . . . and without delay.

Texas Case Highlights the Human Cost of Texas's Abortion Ban

After the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, much was written about the human suffering that will result once states ban or seriously restrict abortion services. The recent Austin case put four faces on that suffering through the testimony of four women plaintiffs. The trial judge's opinion alluded to the nature of their testimony but didn't provide details.  A recent KFF Health News article (August 7) highlighted their testimony and illuminated the risk to women's health as a result of Texas's abortion ban. 

The article should be required reading for members of the legislature and Governor Abbott, but I'm not holding my breath.