Texas AG appeal pauses abortion ruling from ‘activist Austin judge’

DALLAS — A late-night appeal from the Texas Attorney General’s office has paused an injunction that exempted pregnant people with medically complicated pregnancies from the state’s abortion bans.

The state appealed directly to the Texas Supreme Court to stop “an activist Austin judge’s attempt to override Texas abortion laws,” First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster said in a statement. The stay of the injunction will remain in effect until the Texas Supreme Court makes a decision on the appeal.

Travis County Judge Jessica Mangrum issued the short-lived injunction Friday evening, exempting Texans from the state abortion bans if they have medical conditions that complicate pregnancy or if their fetus has a condition that makes it unlikely to survive after birth.

Two weeks prior, four Texas women testified in Austin about abortions they were denied or forced to delay under the state’s ban on the procedure. Texas’ abortion trigger ban, which went into effect last August, outlaws abortions in all cases except for those that threaten the life of a pregnant patient.

But the original exemption for medical emergencies created uncertainty among physicians about whether and when they could provide abortion care, Mangrum said in the ruling. Doctors who perform abortions can face up to life in prison, a $100,000 fine and removal of their medical license.

“Its absolutely appalling that the state would appeal this ruling—a ruling meant to save women’s lives,” said Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Molly Duane, who represents the plaintiffs, in response to the state’s appeal.

“It’s never been clearer that the term ‘pro-life’ is a complete misnomer. What our plaintiffs went through was pure torture, and the state is hell bent on making sure that kind of suffering continues,” she said.

Zurawski vs. State of Texas is one of the first major lawsuits to challenge Texas’ abortion bans. And Friday’s ruling could have major implications for national health care policy going forward.

At last month’s hearings, plaintiffs shared emotional testimony of carrying a fetus with a fatal condition, traveling out of state for abortion care and surviving septic shock when doctors couldn’t legally provide abortion care. Doctors also took the stand, giving insight into how the law impacts the way they can treat pregnant patients.

The physician plaintiffs in the Zurawski case said the vague definition of a “life-threatening” emergency is confusing in practice. Doctors avoid discussing abortion care with their patients because of the potential legal risks.

Texas OB-GYN and plaintiff Dr. Damla Karsan said the injunction ruling made her hopeful that doctors will be able to provide rational care.

“It’s exactly what we needed. The court has guaranteed that we can once again provide the best care without fear of criminal or professional retribution,” Karsan said in a statement.

The women who joined the Zurawski case because of their own abortion experiences celebrated Mangrum’s ruling Friday night.

“For the first time in a long time, I cried for joy when I heard the news,” said lead plaintiff Amanda Zurawski. “This is exactly why we did this. This is why we put ourselves through the pain and the trauma over and over again to share our experiences and the harms caused by these awful laws.”