Austin, Texas
A lawyer representing 20 women and two doctors argued before the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court on Tuesday that women have been denied lifesaving care under the state's strict abortion law as they seek to clarify what qualifies as a medical exception.
"We are just seeking clarification on what the law aims to do," said Molly Duane, a lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which brought the lawsuit.
Five women who were denied abortions under the state filed the lawsuit in March, and they were later joined by 17 other plaintiffs, including two doctors. The lawsuit, which was brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights, is believed to be the first to be brought by women who were denied abortions after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year.
Unlike other legal challenges to abortion laws, this case does not seek to overturn Texas' ban but rather to clarify what qualifies as a medical exemption. But Supreme Court Justice Brett Busby said the job of the court is to "decide cases," and not to "elaborate and expand laws in order to make them easier to understand or enforce."
Beth Klusmann, a lawyer for the state, argued on Tuesday that the women lacked the necessary legal standing to file a lawsuit. She suggested that instead of suing the state, the women should have sued their doctors for medical malpractice.
Duane, the attorney representing the women, argued that the law is ambiguous, and as a result, the women were denied life-saving medical care. He further stated that the state's interpretation of the law would require women to have visible signs of distress, such as blood or amniotic fluid dripping down their leg, before they could seek legal recourse.
Earlier this year, a judge in Austin ruled that women facing pregnancy complications are exempt from the state's abortion ban. However, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed the ruling, leading to the case being brought before the state Supreme Court.
In August, Travis County Judge Jessica Mangrum issued an injunction against the law, stating that the plaintiffs faced an immediate and irreparable harm under Texas's abortion bans. The injunction aimed to protect the plaintiffs' legal right to access abortion care in Texas for emergent medical conditions, as provided for by the medical exception and the Texas Constitution.
However, the injunction was temporarily put on hold when Paxton filed an appeal.
