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.
No comments:
Post a Comment