"...the judges found unanimously that Cox’s doctor “could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s condition poses the risks the exception requires”
As I understand the case, she argues carrying the baby further subjects her to a third C-section. A third C-section she argues carries a substantial likelihood of requirin…
"...the judges found unanimously that Cox’s doctor “could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s condition poses the risks the exception requires”
As I understand the case, she argues carrying the baby further subjects her to a third C-section. A third C-section she argues carries a substantial likelihood of requiring a hysterectomy. That risk, from what was claimed to be her lawyer's brief, is roughly .9%.
She is arguing potential future harm should meet the requirements of the statute's exceptions.
It doesn't matter whether I, or anyone else for the matter, agrees or disagrees with her. The case raises a very serious concern. Assuming for argument that she fails the statutory criteria, it is not terribly difficult to conceive of facts that do meet the criteria.
"...the judges found unanimously that Cox’s doctor “could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s condition poses the risks the exception requires”
As I understand the case, she argues carrying the baby further subjects her to a third C-section. A third C-section she argues carries a substantial likelihood of requiring a hysterectomy. That risk, from what was claimed to be her lawyer's brief, is roughly .9%.
She is arguing potential future harm should meet the requirements of the statute's exceptions.
It doesn't matter whether I, or anyone else for the matter, agrees or disagrees with her. The case raises a very serious concern. Assuming for argument that she fails the statutory criteria, it is not terribly difficult to conceive of facts that do meet the criteria.