WASHINGTON — Hours after a Texas woman left the state to get an abortion that she had sought by court order, the state’s Supreme Court said she could not have the procedure in Texas as part of a medical emergency exception to the state’s abortion ban. 

Days before, the state’s high court issued a temporary order preventing her from getting an abortion in the state, putting on hold a lower court’s order that would have allowed it under narrow exceptions to the ban.

Kate Cox, the 31-year-old Dallas woman said she requested the order because her fetus was diagnosed with a fatal genetic abnormality known as trisomy 18, that often results in stillbirth or early death.

“After a week of legal whiplash and threats of prosecution” from the state’s attorney general, Cox left the state for an abortion “to protect her health and future fertility,” the Center for Reproductive Rights said. 

The group that filed the initial lawsuit on behalf of Cox, announced on X, formerly Twitter, that their client left Texas to get an abortion in another state where the procedure is legal. 

In the lawsuit, Cox’s doctor warned that carrying her pregnancy to term could jeopardize her health and future fertility.

The Texas Supreme Court’s opinion said Cox’s doctor did not indicate that Cox’s symptoms were life threatening and said the state’s exemption to the abortion ban requires a doctor to determine if the mother’s “difficulties pose such risks.” 

“No one disputes that Ms. Cox’s pregnancy has been extremely complicated,” the court said, but it added that “some difficulties in pregnancy, however, even serious ones, do not pose the heightened risks to the mother the exception encompasses.”

On Dec. 7, Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble, granted a temporary restraining order to allow Cox to have an abortion under narrow exceptions to the state’s abortion ban. Later that same day, Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general, asked the state’s Supreme Court to intervene and prevent the abortion from happening. 

The state’s high court put the lower court’s order temporarily on hold while their decision was pending.

Paxton had argued that the state would suffer an “irreparable loss” if Cox terminated her pregnancy. “Because the life of an unborn child is at stake, the court should require a faithful application of Texas statutes prior to determining that an abortion is permitted,” he said in his petition.

Paxton also wrote to the Houston hospitals where the doctor in this case has admitting privileges and threatened to take legal action if Cox had an abortion there. He said the judge’s order would not excuse the hospital or doctor from civil or criminal liability. In Texas, doctors who perform abortions could be sentenced to life imprisonment.

In a Dec. 7 interview with NBC Nightly News, Cox said she was hopeful about the lower court’s decision, but said her family grieves over their unborn child’s fatal diagnosis.

“Even with being hopeful with the decision that came from the hearing, there’s still — we’re going through the loss of a child,” Cox said. “There’s no outcome here that I take home my healthy baby girl. So it’s hard.”

Kimberlyn Schwartz, director of media and communication for Texas Right to Life, said Cox’s story is “heartbreaking because all of us recognize that she and her child are equally valuable and loved by God. If you feel compassion for this situation like us, it is because we all know that there are two lives at stake and that both are supremely important. 

“The answer is not to end the child’s life because of the baby’s disability, but state law does anticipate the serious risk to the mother.”

 On its website, Texas Right to Life said the lawsuit filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights “seeks to conflate two separate issues — the child’s disability and the risk to the mother — in order to use the lawsuit as a gateway to allow babies to be aborted for any reason, not just when the mother’s life is threatened.”

It added that Texas law permits an abortion in “situations where the mother’s life is in jeopardy or if she would face a serious injury because of her pregnancy.” The group said either Cox “qualifies for a medically necessary abortion, in which case her doctor can consult with other physicians at the hospital, or she does not. Medical experts told the court she does not. The group’s lawsuit is intended to increase abortions beyond the scope of current law.”

As this case is being examined, the Texas pro-life group stressed that medical associations and state health agencies need to provide better education and guidance to physicians about what the Texas law says about abortions in life-threatening circumstances. 

It also said it wants to spread awareness about resources for parents facing severe fetal diagnoses through nonprofit groups like the Texas group Abel Speaks. 

The Texas Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the state’s bishops, has not issued a reaction to this case but on its website is has a section called “Clarifications on Treating Pregnancy Complications in Texas” that spells out what the medical community can and cannot do in compliance with the state’s abortion ban. 

To educate Catholic health care providers and families on this topic, the group urged a careful reading of the National Catholic Bioethics Center’s publication, “Medical Interventions in Pregnancy in Light of Dobbs” and materials from the Catholic Health Association. 

The article from the Philadelphia-based National Catholic Bioethics Center said that “a life-limiting fetal diagnosis such as trisomy 13, trisomy 18, or anencephaly does not justify direct abortion or referral for direct abortion.”

Instead, it said this diagnosis “should result in referral to appropriate maternal-fetal care specialists so that parents can be informed of medically indicated and morally permissible intervention options. For children diagnosed with a life-limiting medical condition, prenatal medical interventions should be offered as appropriate. 

“Options for resuscitative and curative measures following birth should be presented to parents, and parental requests for treatment should be honored to the extent they are medically feasible. Perinatal hospice, including pastoral care and counseling for the parents, should be offered as appropriate,” it added. 

The Texas bishops pointed out on their website that families or medical professionals seeking assistance with specific situations should consult with a clergy member or an ethicist in Catholic health care. 

It also said that “Catholic hospitals in Texas and throughout the country have been providing compassionate care for women and babies (born and unborn) for centuries without providing abortions or abortive procedures.”