What was our biggest complaint with Roe v Wade? Abortion was decided by judges, thus leaving legislatures elected by voters out of the conversation. Roe was overturned and now voters get to vote on the issue. As a consequence, you have unconditional abortion in California and restricted abortion in places like Texas.

Last week, a judge in Texas went around state law and approved an abortion because the baby was apparently diagnosed with a fatal condition. Before I go any further, let me say that this is a situation that we can all sympathize with. Unfortunately, it does not work that way in Texas no matter how sympathetic we may be with her condition.

In Texas, we have a medical exception for abortion. However, it's up to doctors not a judge. This is what the Texas Supreme Court concluded:

The Texas Supreme Court on Monday ruled doctors must use their “reasonable medical judgment” to determine when a patient qualifies for an abortion and called on the state’s medical board to issue more guidance. 

The high court’s decision struck down a lower court ruling allowing Kate Cox, the 31-year-old Dallas woman whose fetus was diagnosed with a typically fatal disorder, to get an abortion. It came hours after Cox’s lawyers announced she would leave the state for the procedure.

In Texas, a woman who qualifies for the medical-necessity exception does not need to go to a judge but rather her doctor. Did this woman get a medical report confirming that she qualified for the exception? Who told her to go a judge? Why didn't the judge tell her that she couldn't do anything about it?

The story suddenly ended yesterday because the woman left Texas to get an abortion.

We understand that these are complicated situations and our sympathy is with the woman. At the same time, what went wrong here is that the judge authorized an abortion rather than leaving it up to doctors.

P.S. Check out my blog for posts, podcasts and videos.

Image: Public Domain