A Woman Sued for the Right to Have an Abortion in Her Home State of Texas. Here’s Everything We Know About Kate Cox

SUZANNE CORDEIRO/Getty Images

The fight for reproductive rights has a new face. Earlier this month Kate Cox, 31, sued the state of Texas for her right to terminate a pregnancy which, if forced to proceed, was likely to end in a stillbirth and cause damage to Cox’s future fertility. At the time she was 20 weeks pregnant, well past the six-week window in which women are legally allowed to seek an abortion in the state.

Texas’s near-total abortion ban under SB8, which went into effect in September 2021, theoretically allows for exceptions in cases where the health of the pregnant person or the fetus is at stake. However, after a week of “legal whiplash” while the courts argued over how to interpret this part of the law, on December 11, Cox’s lawyer announced that she had decided to leave her home state in order to find adequate abortion care elsewhere.

In a statement, Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing Cox, said: “This past week of legal limbo has been hellish for Kate. Her health is on the line. She’s been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn’t wait any longer. This is why judges and politicians should not be making healthcare decisions for pregnant people—they are not doctors. This is the result of the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade: Women are forced to beg for urgent healthcare in court. Kate’s case has shown the world that abortion bans are dangerous for pregnant people, and exceptions don’t work.”

Cox’s case is believed to be the first time a woman has sought the court’s approval for an abortion in Texas since the fall of Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

Here are the basics of the story, which is still developing:

Why did Kate Cox need an abortion?

In late November 2023, Dallas area resident Cox, who is 31 and shares two children with her husband, learned that her fetus had trisomy 18, a rare chromosomal disorder. Many babies with this condition die before birth or within the first month after birth, according to MedlinePlus, a service of the National Library of Medicine.

In a December 6 op-ed published in the Dallas Morning News, Cox, who was then 20 weeks pregnant, wrote that the genetic condition plaguing her fetus is one that “cannot sustain life.” She recalled the moment that her doctor called to deliver the news: “Tears rolled down my face as I read about issues with multiple vital organs and learned that ‘most of the cases do not last the full pregnancy and result in stillbirths.’”

Cox’s previous two children were delivered via C-section, and she was at risk for medical complications, all of which would be exacerbated the longer she stayed pregnant. Per reporting from NBC News, “Doctors told Cox that if the baby’s heartbeat were to stop, inducing labor would carry a risk of a uterine rupture because of her prior cesareans, and another C-section at full term would endanger her ability to carry another child.”

In the same op-ed, Cox revealed that she had reached out to the Center for Reproductive Rights to help her “access the essential and humane health care I seek in my home state of Texas.”

“I’m trying to do what is best for my baby daughter and myself and my family, but we are suffering because of the laws in Texas,” she continued. “I am asking the Texas courts to grant me a temporary restraining order saying that my situation falls under the exception to the state’s abortion bans. Not because my pregnancy is exceptional, just because this is life. It’s my decision.”

Who filed the lawsuit?

In early December, the Center for Reproductive Rights, on behalf of Cox and her husband and their doctor and lawyers, filed for a temporary restraining order that would block the state from enforcing its abortion ban so that she could get an abortion. The state does allow abortions after the six-week mark if there is a risk of “substantial” harm to the pregnant person, but as the law is ill-defined, many doctors do not want to risk imprisonment by performing abortions. The restraining order would give Cox and her doctor legal protection to go ahead with the abortion without the threat of imprisonment or other consequences.

What did the courts say?

In December, Judge Maya Guerra Gamble granted the restraining order, telling the press, “The idea that Ms. Cox wants desperately to be a parent and this law might actually cause her to lose that ability is shocking and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice,” per The Texas Tribune.

However, the Tribune reports that Texas attorney general Ken Paxton campaigned against the judge’s ruling, sending a letter to hospitals in Houston saying that the restraining order did “not insulate hospitals, doctors, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws.”

Less than a week later, the Texas State Supreme Court overturned Gamble’s order, according to The New York Times. The court’s ruling stated that Cox’s doctor, Damla Karsan, MD, “asked the 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.”

Here’s a bit more about Texas’s abortion laws and individuals’ ability to sue. And here’s more on how Texas abortion providers can defend themselves from prosecution.

What is the latest development?

While her lawyers continue trying her case in Texas, the Center for Reproductive Rights reported on December 11 that Kate Cox had left the state so that she can receive abortion care. For her own safety, the location where Cox is receiving treatment has not been released publicly.

Why is this important?

In addition to being important to Cox and her family, the ultimate outcome of this case could set precedent for years to come—and not just in Texas. Politico reports that legal experts expect “the Texas case’s implications stretch far beyond the state’s borders and highlight the defects of a post-Roe legal regime in which a patchwork of state laws is open to clashing interpretations.”

Originally Appeared on Glamour