 I never imagined we'd be in this position. I never imagined I would ever want or need an abortion. And I think by sharing this story, you can imagine the women that you love in your life and imagine they're pregnant and so happy and looking forward to the baby. And they find out that she will not survive. She'll either die in my belly or I'll carry her to term and have to deliver her still porn or if she arrives into this world, her life will be measured in minutes or hours or days and plagued with medical devices. She would need to be placed directly onto hospice. So imagine receiving that news and pairing that with the risks and complications of continuing the pregnancy and the childbirth. It's overwhelming. So I wanted to share my story because I never would have thought of it before it happened to me. And so I just want people to hear it. You just heard from Kate Cox. She's a 31-year-old mother of two and a Texas woman who is forced to leave her own state all so she can receive the life-saving healthcare that she needs. Now in this instance, that healthcare in question is abortion. But because of her state's laws and specifically her state's attorney general, now she is unable to get that care and she was forced to leave. Now the shocking details of the story make it crystal clear that Republicans could not care less about life. The Dallas Morning News reports, Kate Cox, 31, sued the state earlier this week for access to an abortion after receiving a fatal fetal diagnosis that doctors say could risk her health or future fertility. Travis County District Court Judge Maya Garagambal granted a temporary restraining order allowing the abortion under the medical exemption clause of Texas' abortion bans. Before filing the suit with the state, Cox experienced severe cramping and unidentifiable fluid leaks that sent her to the emergency room multiple times. Doctors diagnosed her baby with full trism E-18, also known as Edwards syndrome, which makes it highly unlikely the baby will survive long after birth if it's not stillborn. The lawsuit alleges that Cox is at risk for severe complications that could threaten her life or fertility given her two prior cesarean sections and elevated vital signs. Now in an op-ed she wrote for the Dallas Morning News, she said this about her lawsuit, quote, I do not want to continue the pain and suffering that has plagued this pregnancy or continue to put my body or my mental health through the risks of continuing this pregnancy. I do not want my baby to arrive in this world only to watch her suffer. I need to end my pregnancy now so that I have the best chance for my health, for parenting my children and for a future pregnancy. With help from the center, I'm asking the Texas courts to grant me a temporary restraining order saying that my situation falls under the exception to the state's abortion bans, not because my pregnancy is exceptional, just because this is life, it's my decision. Now the fact that she has to ask permission to obtain basic healthcare is absurd to me. This is an adult woman who is more than capable of making these deeply personal decisions on her own with her family and between her and her husband and her doctor. They don't need politicians or laws to determine whether or not she qualifies. But still, under Texas's draconian abortion bans, she supposedly meets the criteria for exceptions. So if a person's life is in danger or if major impairment of bodily functions is likely as a result of the pregnancy, well then you can terminate the pregnancy. That's what the exception states. So she meets that criteria. The pregnancy is nonviable and it threatens her life and could prevent her from having children in the future, which is something she wants to do. And after suing, a district court judge approved her request for an abortion because obviously she meets the criteria for these exceptions. The Daily Beast explains, a judge had sided with Cox on Thursday, issuing a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of the ban in this case. Quote, the idea that Ms. Cox wants desperately to be pregnant and this law might actually cause her to lose that ability is shocking and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice, the judge said in explaining her decision, referring to warnings from Cox's doctors that the doomed pregnancy could affect her future fertility. So she applied for the abortion exception and she got one. That's the end of the story, right? Actually, no. The Republican attorney general in Texas Ken Paxton decided to personally intervene to stop her from getting the healthcare that she needs. So his office released this statement warning that the district court judge's decision does not actually insulate her gynecologist or the hospitals involved from legal culpability if they give her an abortion. And he sent a letter to multiple hospitals that all could be potentially performing the procedure, letting them know that if they do this, he's coming after them if they allow this to happen. And guess what? He won. This one man used his power to intervene and stop this one woman from getting the healthcare that she needs to save her life. It's just so ridiculous to me. The fact that he would be shameless enough to do this after purporting to be pro-life tells you so much about him, right? But the fact that we have a political system, a legal system that allows one man to intervene in this very personal healthcare decision shows you how flawed this system is. The Daily Beast explains, the Texas Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a woman from receiving an abortion after a lower court ruled that she could get the procedure in order to protect her own health. The late Friday ruling came just hours after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the state Supreme Court to step in and reverse the decision made in favor of 31-year-old Kate Cox, who had sued for the right to terminate a non-viable pregnancy. Paxton's office in a filing with the state Supreme Court on Friday stressed the importance of the fetus's life despite a fatal diagnosis. Quote, each hour it remains in place is an hour that plaintiffs believe themselves free to perform and procure an elective abortion, Paxton's office wrote, nothing can restore the unborn child's life that will be lost as a result. Just stop for a moment and try to comprehend how monstrous this is. Ken Paxton is saying, I, somebody not involved, this is none of my business, but I personally demand that this woman risk her life and health all to deliver this baby so she can watch it die a slow and painful death. Why? Because I'm pro-life. It is genuinely sickening. I don't even know what to say about this. Now this is not the decision that Kate wants to make. So the question is, what is she supposed to do? Well, as I stated earlier, she now has to leave her own state because her attorney general says no after she even had to ask for permission to get this abortion, which she is entitled to since she meets the exceptions and also I think she is the, the guardian of her own fucking body. This is so ridiculous to me. Now the Center for Reproductive Rights who's representing her writes this on Twitter. After a week of legal whiplash and threats of prosecution from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, our client Kate Cox has been forced to flee her home state of Texas to get the time-sensitive abortion care needed to protect her child and future fertility. They add, this past week of legal limbo has been hellish for Kate. Her health is on the line. She's been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn't wait any longer. This is why judges and politicians should not be making healthcare decisions for pregnant people. This is a quote from Nancy Northup. She continues, this is the result of the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade. Women are forced to beg for urgent healthcare in court. Kate's case has shown the world that abortion bans are dangerous for pregnant people and exceptions don't work. Kate desperately wanted to be able to get care where she lives and recover at home surrounded by family. While Kate had the ability to leave the state, most people do not in a situation like this could be a death sentence. Jesus, what an absolute disaster. Now, if you're wondering why Texas even bothers to have these exceptions in the first place, if they're still just gonna intervene and force these births, well, the answer is they have them for optics to make them look better, to make it seem as if they're less monstrous than they actually are. Most of these exceptions in states are insufficient, if not all of them. And doctors are still afraid to perform abortions even if their patients meet that criteria because they don't know if that's still gonna shield them from legal culpability. And this case validates that fear that these doctors have, right? But Republicans have these exceptions on the books so they don't look like monsters. But this should tell you everything you need to know about the usefulness of these so-called exceptions. Now, we're gonna hear more from Kate's attorney who makes it very clear why Ken Paxton is doing this. It's not out of some moral obligation to protect the life of this unborn fetus. It is so that way they can just punish women. Cruelty is the point, let's listen. The cruelty here is the point and making it terrifying for Ms. Cox, for her husband, for her doctor to be able to proceed in the way that is safest and best for her healthcare and her family is exactly what Ken Paxton is trying to do. And I as an attorney am called at what has happened today. I am so thankful that Ms. Cox is so brave and so optimistic because it is a hard time to be a lawyer when you feel like you can do your absolute best for your client. You can get the result that it's just and it's right and yet still face what we are talking about here is life in prison, loss of medical license and hundreds of thousands of dollars and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines both for the physician and for Ms. Cox's husband who just wants to help his wife get the healthcare that she needs so that they can continue to build the family that they want. And I am shocked, but I am not surprised. Ms. Twain, as you know, there are a number of legal cases unfolding around abortion access. Are there wider implications for this ruling? Well, this ruling today was just about Ms. Cox and whether or not she can get the healthcare that she needs to preserve her life and her fertility in her home community. But obviously these fights are playing out nationwide. And what I really want people to understand is that in the 14 states where abortion is now entirely prohibited and states like Florida and Arizona that have gestational bans that some people would call a compromise but clearly are not as they would affect Ms. Cox's care as well, there are no exceptions under those bans because if Ms. Cox doesn't fall within the exception then what does the exception even mean? And so I just want people to really understand just how damaging abortion bans are and to see themselves in Ms. Cox and her family because this could happen to anyone. And my position as a citizen, as a lawyer and as a human being is that each individual's grieving process should be their own to decide. And when it comes to healthcare, I don't want politicians in my state or anywhere else dictating what care I can get. Yeah, exactly. Everything she said there was spot on but the main thing that I want you to take away from what you just watched was what she said about these so-called exceptions. She said there are no exceptions under those bans because if Ms. Cox doesn't fall within the exception then what does the exception even mean? Yeah, bingo. We've had countless stories of women having to wait until they get infections before their doctors feel safe enough to perform these abortions that the state law says they are allowed to have. The first case after Roe v. Wade was overturned or one of the first cases I should say involved a 10 year old rape victim who literally had to travel across state lines just to get an abortion. And the irony is that all of this unnecessary pain and suffering is being inflicted on people by Republicans who call themselves pro-life. It's like a sick twisted joke or something. So I mean, I think this goes without saying but obviously we need to bring back Roe v. Wade as soon as possible. And if that means packing the Supreme Court then so be it. Because any law that subjects citizens to this level of cruelty is not legitimate.