NYT - The women, backed by an abortion-rights group, say they were denied abortions under state law despite risks to themselves and their fetuses that made the procedure a medical necessity.
Five women who say they were denied abortions despite grave risks to their lives or their fetuses sued the State of Texas on Monday, apparently the first time that pregnant women themselves have taken legal action against the bans that have shut down access to abortion across the country since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The women — two visibly pregnant — plan to tell their stories on the steps of the Texas Capitol on Tuesday. Their often harrowing experiences will put faces to what their 91-page complaint calls “catastrophic harms” to women since the court’s decision in June, which eliminated the constitutional right to abortion after five decades.
The suit asks the court to affirm that physicians can make exceptions, and to clarify under what conditions. But its greater power may be in appealing to public opinion on abortion. Similar lawsuits over exceptions, focusing public attention on stories of women who were denied abortions despite medical dangers, helped build momentum for legalized abortion in heavily Catholic Ireland and in South America.
The women who are bringing the suit contradict stereotypes about who receives abortions and why. Married, and some with children already, the women rejoiced at their pregnancies, only to discover that their fetuses had no chance of survival — two had no skulls, and two others were threatening the lives of their twins.
Though they faced the risk of hemorrhage or life-threatening infection from carrying those fetuses, the women were told they could not have abortions, the suit says. Some doctors refused even to suggest the option, or to forward medical records to another provider.
The women found themselves furtively crossing state borders to seek medical treatment outside Texas, worried that family and neighbors might report them to state authorities. In some cases, the women became so ill that they were hospitalized. One plaintiff, Amanda Zurawski, was told she was not yet sick enough to receive an abortion, then twice became septic, and was left with so much scar tissue that one of her fallopian tubes is permanently closed. Ms. Zurawski became pregnant in early 2022 after 18 months of fertility treatments. In her 17th week of pregnancy, and the day after she made the guest list for her baby shower, a scan found that her cervical membranes had begun to prolapse. Specialists told her that her fetus, which she had begun thinking of as her baby, would not survive.
Doctors told Ms. Zurawski they could perform an abortion only if she became acutely ill or went into labor naturally, or if the fetus’s heartbeat stopped. That night at home, her water broke, but when she went to the emergency room, doctors said she was not in labor. Without amniotic fluid, the fetus would die, but it still had a heartbeat. And because Ms. Zurawski’s vital signs were stable, they said, she did not qualify for an exception. The hospital sent her home.
Three days later, her doctors again told the Zurawskis they could not legally abort the fetus because it still had a heartbeat. At home that night, Ms. Zurawski developed a fever, and her husband called the obstetrician to ask to go to the hospital. “We were in this mind-set of, ‘Surely now you’ll accept us,’” Mr. Zurawski said. A nurse told them, he said, that doctors would have to receive approval from the hospital’s ethics board. He finally rushed his wife to the emergency room later that night. There her fever spiked to 103.2 degrees. Doctors confirmed that she had a blood infection and said her life was now in danger, so they could induce delivery without violating Texas’ abortion ban. Later that night, she developed a secondary infection. Doctors told Mr. Zurawski that they had to give his wife a blood transfusion to stabilize her enough to move her to the intensive care unit. The couple’s families flew in, fearing that she would die.
Ms. Zurawski left intensive care after three days, and the hospital after a week. Two months later, she had an operation to remove scar tissue from her uterus and fallopian tubes, but the doctors were unable to clear one. “You don’t think you’re somebody who’s going to need an abortion, let alone an abortion to save my life,” Ms. Zurawski, 35, said. “If anybody reads my story, I don’t care where they are on the political spectrum, very few people would agree there is anything pro-life about this.”
If a pregnant woman actually dies after being denied a live-saving abortion, will Texas lawmakers rejoice, or will they mourn?
Five women who say they were denied abortions despite grave risks to their lives or their fetuses sued the State of Texas on Monday, apparently the first time that pregnant women themselves have taken legal action against the bans that have shut down access to abortion across the country since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The women — two visibly pregnant — plan to tell their stories on the steps of the Texas Capitol on Tuesday. Their often harrowing experiences will put faces to what their 91-page complaint calls “catastrophic harms” to women since the court’s decision in June, which eliminated the constitutional right to abortion after five decades.
The suit asks the court to affirm that physicians can make exceptions, and to clarify under what conditions. But its greater power may be in appealing to public opinion on abortion. Similar lawsuits over exceptions, focusing public attention on stories of women who were denied abortions despite medical dangers, helped build momentum for legalized abortion in heavily Catholic Ireland and in South America.
The women who are bringing the suit contradict stereotypes about who receives abortions and why. Married, and some with children already, the women rejoiced at their pregnancies, only to discover that their fetuses had no chance of survival — two had no skulls, and two others were threatening the lives of their twins.
Though they faced the risk of hemorrhage or life-threatening infection from carrying those fetuses, the women were told they could not have abortions, the suit says. Some doctors refused even to suggest the option, or to forward medical records to another provider.
The women found themselves furtively crossing state borders to seek medical treatment outside Texas, worried that family and neighbors might report them to state authorities. In some cases, the women became so ill that they were hospitalized. One plaintiff, Amanda Zurawski, was told she was not yet sick enough to receive an abortion, then twice became septic, and was left with so much scar tissue that one of her fallopian tubes is permanently closed. Ms. Zurawski became pregnant in early 2022 after 18 months of fertility treatments. In her 17th week of pregnancy, and the day after she made the guest list for her baby shower, a scan found that her cervical membranes had begun to prolapse. Specialists told her that her fetus, which she had begun thinking of as her baby, would not survive.
Doctors told Ms. Zurawski they could perform an abortion only if she became acutely ill or went into labor naturally, or if the fetus’s heartbeat stopped. That night at home, her water broke, but when she went to the emergency room, doctors said she was not in labor. Without amniotic fluid, the fetus would die, but it still had a heartbeat. And because Ms. Zurawski’s vital signs were stable, they said, she did not qualify for an exception. The hospital sent her home.
Three days later, her doctors again told the Zurawskis they could not legally abort the fetus because it still had a heartbeat. At home that night, Ms. Zurawski developed a fever, and her husband called the obstetrician to ask to go to the hospital. “We were in this mind-set of, ‘Surely now you’ll accept us,’” Mr. Zurawski said. A nurse told them, he said, that doctors would have to receive approval from the hospital’s ethics board. He finally rushed his wife to the emergency room later that night. There her fever spiked to 103.2 degrees. Doctors confirmed that she had a blood infection and said her life was now in danger, so they could induce delivery without violating Texas’ abortion ban. Later that night, she developed a secondary infection. Doctors told Mr. Zurawski that they had to give his wife a blood transfusion to stabilize her enough to move her to the intensive care unit. The couple’s families flew in, fearing that she would die.
Ms. Zurawski left intensive care after three days, and the hospital after a week. Two months later, she had an operation to remove scar tissue from her uterus and fallopian tubes, but the doctors were unable to clear one. “You don’t think you’re somebody who’s going to need an abortion, let alone an abortion to save my life,” Ms. Zurawski, 35, said. “If anybody reads my story, I don’t care where they are on the political spectrum, very few people would agree there is anything pro-life about this.”
If a pregnant woman actually dies after being denied a live-saving abortion, will Texas lawmakers rejoice, or will they mourn?
