Dem
51
GOP
49
We don't know for sure, but we suspect that the names of Kate Cox and Terri Schiavo will be linked for a very long time, as examples of Republican assertiveness (from one perspective) or overreach (from the other) when it comes to the alleged sanctity of human life.
Cox has been in the headlines for a couple of weeks at this point, so many readers presumably know her story. She is (or very possibly, at this point, was) pregnant with her third child. The fetus has been diagnosed with Trisomy 18, also known as Edwards syndrome. Such fetuses have significant anatomical defects, including heart and brain issues. They are rarely delivered alive, and even when a live birth does come to pass, the 1-year survival rate is less than 10%, and the 3-year survival rate is very close to 0%. On top of that, Cox has had two cesarean sections, and a few other interventions, in the past. And so, she and her doctor both say that carrying the pregnancy to term could put her life in danger. Nobody has stepped forward, as far as we can find, to dispute this assertion.
In short, even under Texas' restrictive abortion laws, Cox should have been entitled to the procedure. However, she could not get a doctor to perform it without sign-off from a court. She initially won, but then the ultra-corrupt state AG Ken Paxton (R) got involved. He appealed the case to the state Supreme Court, which is very conservative, and got the lower-court decision overturned. He also warned that any Texas doctor who performed an abortion for Cox would prosecuted. Doctors who perform abortions in Texas are at risk of prison terms of up to 99 years and six-figure fines.
On Monday, it was reported that Cox finally bowed to the same reality that so many other women have bowed to, and traveled out of state to get an abortion. She had dozens of offers of assistance, from Kansas, and California, and New York, and Illinois and even... Canada. Cox's attorneys have not revealed which destination she chose, but presumably, by the time you read this, her saga will be over.
Or will it be? Paxton is not the type to take a loss lying down, and he's made this a cause célèbre in the Lone Star State. So, our guess is he'll try to prosecute Cox for breaking state law. Or to prosecute one or more of the people who helped Cox travel out of state. He might even succeed, although even if he doesn't, he doesn't much care. He just wants the PR from having done battle against Cox and her supporters.
And that brings us to what we would say is a very good question: Who, other than Paxton, benefited here? If someone is pro-choice, it is obvious why this fiasco would be deemed outrageous and offensive. But even if someone is anti-choice, is this really the best hill to die upon? Or even a good hill? Next year, this incident will serve as (even more) fodder for Democratic criticisms that these harsh abortion policies put innocent women in cruel and unusual situations. Again, Cox wants a baby. She's only aborting because the fetus is unlikely to be born alive, is not going to survive even if it does, and may put her own life at risk. Does fighting this fight say "pro-life" to you? Because it sure doesn't to us. (Z)