As you might have read in my Wednesday post, Ann Coulter declared on Twitter that when the Texas Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and refused to allow Kate Cox to have an abortion-- was cruel.
Some have suggested that Coulter had no business commenting on the matter, because she has never been pregnant. I will add that if pregnancy is a qualification for commenting on an abortion decision, I too am unqualified. I know precious little about the conquences of being pregnant with a fetus that suffers from the genetic condition called Trisomy 18. Heck, I am not even an obstetrician.
As it happened, a Washington Post reporter, by name of Kelsey Ables, has collected some of the evidence. She helps us al to understand the issues. For the record, the issue is now moot, because Cox traveled to another state to have the procedure done.
After Kate Cox learned her fetus had Trisomy 18, a genetic disorder that almost always results in miscarriage or stillbirth, the Dallas-area mother of two realized: “It isn’t a matter of if I will have to say goodbye to her, but when,” the 31-year-old wrote in a Dallas Morning News essay.
Now, almost always is not the same as always. And yet, the likelihood of a healthy baby is miniscule, though not impossible. Imagine if a surgeon told you that, if you do not have a certain surgery, your chances of survival are around 10%, but if you do have the surgery, your chances are closer to 100%. What would you choose?
Meanwhile, back in Texas, the state Supreme Court decided that there was not a high enough risk to the mother’s health. Which leads you to ask why a panel of judges should have the last word on this issue:
She petitioned a judge to get an abortion in Texas — where the procedure is banned in most cases — under a narrow exception that allows abortions when the mother’s health is put seriously at risk. While a lower court ruled last week to allow the exception, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the decision on Monday, arguing that the condition does not “pose the heightened risks to the mother the exception encompasses.”
As for Trisomy 18, you are doubtless curious to know what it is. The Post addresses the issue:
Trisomy 18, also known as Edwards syndrome, is a disorder in which a fetus has three copies of chromosome 18 rather than two. Because genes direct development, “almost all the organs have abnormalities,” said Mary Norton, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California at San Francisco. There is some variation, but brain, kidney, limb and especially heart abnormalities are common, she said.
As for survival rates, for babies with Trisomy 18, the statistics are grim. The great majority do not survive their first year. Most die within two weeks of birth:
About 50 percent of babies carried to term with Trisomy 18 are born alive, according to studies cited by the Minnesota Department of Health; among them, an estimated 90 to 95 percent do not survive beyond their first year. Most die within 10 to 15 days, often from cardiac arrest or respiratory failure, according to the amicus brief filed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
As for specifics of Kate Cox’s case, especially involving her health, the news is certainly not very encouraging. In general, Trisomy 18 pregnancies are far more likely to be delivered before 32 weeks, and to involve Caesarean section:
A California study of deliveries between 2005 and 2008 found Trisomy 18 pregnancies were 2.5 times more likely to be delivered by Caesarean section and 10 times more likely to be delivered at less than 32 weeks.
Presumably, an important issue was the health of the mother. As you might know already, Cox had had a very difficult pregnancy:
Cox had been to the emergency room at least three times during her pregnancy, The Washington Post reported, with “severe cramping, diarrhea, and leaking unidentifiable fluid.” Cox has had two prior C-sections and would have probably needed a third if she carried the pregnancy to term, according to the complaint — which doctors said could have affected her ability to have more children.
Apparently, none of this counts for the pro-life forces in Texas. As Ann Coulter recognized, their fanaticism has undermined their cause. Perhaps physicians have different opinions. And yet, do we really want judges and other assorted attorneys to make the decisions?
Although I am also not a physician, I can use google as well as the next person and suspect you are equally qualified, so I am disappointed that you would rely on so biased a source as the Post and the political polemics from Ms. Coulter for your information on this case, or trisomy 18 in general. I am, however, an attorney (retired) by trade and have a somewhat larger than average acquaintance with interpretation of court cases. So, I shall submit the following for reveiw. First, although it is true that trisomy 18 is generally fatal to the baby pre-partum or shortly after birth it is not universally so. You might wish to further acquaint yourself with the Trisomy 18 Foundation, whose website is helpful. It clearly establishes that such babies can and do survive, sometimes for extended periods. "Just as children with Down syndrome can range from mildly to severely affected, the same is true for children with Trisomy 18. This means that there is no hard and fast rule about what Trisomy 18 will mean for a specific child. Each child has their own unique profile of how Trisomy 18 is affecting their developing body and organs." Rick Santorum had a trisomy 18 daughter who survived and in fact, is still alive at age 15. Furthermore, other than the usual complications of pregnancy, there is no substantially greater risk to the life of the mother of a trisomy 18 baby than any other baby. This is, in fact, what was the salient feature in the Texas Supreme Court's decision; viz., that there had been NO evidence presented to the trial court in favor of allowing an abortion under its current law. As the Decision set forth, the law allows an abortion when:
"in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female . . . has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced."
The doctor to whom the plaintiff had been referred in seeking to have an abortion under the law was Dr. Damla Karsan, an unabashed abortion proponent and activist, yet, the Court found that "Dr. Karsan asked a 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."
The Court therefore concluded that insufficient evidence had been presented in the court of original jurisdiction, but did not permanently foreclose the possibility of an abortion, if the appicable standards were met, stating, "A pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a lifesaving abortion in Texas. Our ruling today does not block a life-saving abortion in this very case if a physician determines that one is needed under the appropriate legal standard, using reasonable medical judgment. If Ms. Cox’s circumstances are, or have become, those that satisfy the statutory exception, no court order is needed. Nothing in this opinion prevents a physician from acting if, in that physician’s reasonable medical judgment, she determines that Ms. Cox has a “life threatening physical condition” that places her “at risk of death” or “poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced.”
Although you are usually punctilious in your examination of the evidence supporting or opposing a proposition in contention, you woefully failed to meet that standard in this matter. Your unquestioning acceptance of media-produced propaganda without any hesitation is disappointing and has undermined my confidence in your facilities of analysis, something I shall, sadly, need to keep in mind in the future. Or as all the cool kids say today, "Do better."
Thank you for speaking about this shameful episode in Texas. Here in Kansas the voters were not fooled when the "pro life" constitutional amendment was defeated in a landslide. The GOP left matters ambiguous as to what they would do if the amendment passed. Voters guessed right they would ban it completely like Texas. This case you wrote about has scandalized me to identify as a pro choice proponent. My ex wife had an abortion after a rape. Democrats really do have a blunt instrument of an issue.