Tangle - The groundbreaking Texas abortion challenge.

Episode Date: December 13, 2023

The Texas abortion case. On Monday, the Texas Supreme Court reversed a lower court's ruling that would have allowed a woman to obtain an abortion under the state's medical emergency exception. Just hours before the court's ruling, the same woman, Kate Cox, left the state to terminate her pregnancy.You can read today's podcast ⁠⁠here⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story here, and today’s “Have a nice day” story here. You can also check out our latest videos, and interview with presidential candidate Marianne Williamson here and a look at what a potential second term for Donald Trump could look like, here.Today’s clickables: Quick hits (1:08), Today’s story (3:45), Left’s take (6:53), Right’s take (10:44), Isaac’s take (14:35), Listener question (20:11), Under the Radar (23:01), Numbers (23:51), Have a nice day (24:55)You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the poll. What do you think of Texas's abortion law? Let us know! Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police

procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. From executive producer Isaac Saul,

this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about the Texas abortion case involving the Texas State Supreme Court and a ruling it made about a woman, Kate Cox, who is seeking out an abortion in the state. Pretty interesting. Some big implications, I think, for the country and also for Texas as a state. We're going to dive in, explain what happened, and as always, share some views from across the political spectrum. Before we do,

as always, we're going to kick things off with some quick hits. First up, in a rare criticism, President Biden insisted the Israeli government needed to change strategy in its war with Hamas and embrace a two-state solution or risk losing international support. Meanwhile, Israeli forces have begun pumping seawater into underground tunnels in Gaza as part of its effort to destroy Hamas infrastructure. Number two, New York State Supreme Court ruled that the state must redraw its congressional districts before the 2024 election, a decision that is likely to benefit Democrats in the race to control the House of Representatives. Number three, the COP28 summit ended in Dubai, where nearly 200 nations signed a pledge to transition away from fossil fuels. Number three, the COP28 summit ended in Dubai, where nearly 200 nations signed a pledge to

transition away from fossil fuels. Number four, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Republican from Kentucky, said a deal to provide Ukraine with more funding and beef up border security is practically impossible to pass before Christmas, signaling the Senate might be sent home for holiday break without a measure in place. And number five, the Supreme Court announced on Wednesday that it would decide on the availability of a commonly used abortion pill, the first major case involving abortion on its docket, since it overturned Roe v. Wade earlier this year. Just moments ago, a Travis County judge granted a temporary restraining order on the state's abortion ban so a Texas woman could get a medically necessary abortion. Good evening, I'm John Yang.

An unusual abortion rights case in Texas has taken a turn. The state Supreme Court temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that would have allowed a pregnant woman whose fetus has a fatal diagnosis to get an abortion despite some of the nation's most restrictive abortion laws. The one-page order stresses that it is not a ruling on the two sides' legal arguments and that the case remains undecided. Lawyers for Kate Cox, the 31-year-old mother of two in the case, say they fear that justice delayed for the at-risk pregnancy will be justice denied. Back here in the U.S. tonight and to the deeply personal issue of abortion and the young pregnant mother in Texas, her health in danger, unable to get an abortion because of the law in that state.

her health in danger, unable to get an abortion because of the law in that state. And tonight, the Texas Supreme Court has now ruled against that mother and against the judge who said she should be allowed to get the abortion to protect her own health and to be able to have children in the future. So what now? And how many women in other states are now facing the same fate? On Monday, the Texas Supreme Court reversed a lower court's ruling that would have allowed a woman to obtain an abortion under the state's medical emergency exception. Just hours before the court's ruling, the same woman, Kate Cox, left the state to terminate her pregnancy. Before the dramatic reversal by the state Supreme Court, a state district court judge had sided with Cox, granting her and her doctors a temporary

restraining order against the state so she could legally have an abortion without fear of punishment. Cox had sought the exception after learning that her fetus had Edwards syndrome, which results in fetal loss in over 80% of cases and can risk future fertility of the mother. Roughly 10% of babies diagnosed with Edwards syndrome survive past birth, and only 10% of those survive their first year. Cox was 21 weeks pregnant. Texas has a near total abortion ban any time after fetal cardiac activity is detected, usually around six weeks. The ban does not make any exceptions for fetal abnormalities, rape, or incest, but permits abortion if a physician believes that a medical emergency exists. The law received a great deal of national attention,

not just for its strictness, but also because of its structure. Rather than being enforced by the state government, any citizen can sue abortion providers for alleged violations, and a plaintiff can receive a cash reward if the accused from their case is found guilty. Critics of the bill described it as a quote-unquote bounty system. Cox's lawsuit is believed to be the first attempt by anyone to receive a court exemption for an abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. Shortly after the district court's ruling, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a letter threatening to prosecute any doctors who helped facilitate the abortion and said the charges could come at the end of the court's 14-day restraining order. He also suggested Dr. Damla Carson, Cox's doctor, would not be insulated from civil and criminal

liability and said that any hospital where the abortion took place could also be liable. Language in the Texas Supreme Court reemphasized that the Texas abortion law delegated to medical professionals the decision about when an abortion is necessary. However, the court ruling denied Cox's doctor a restraining order that would have protected her from prosecution in this case, ultimately leaving her open to fines or jail time for providing the abortion. The court faulted Carson, Cox's doctor, for saying in court filings that she had a quote-unquote good faith belief Cox is entitled to an abortion rather than noting that she made a reasonable medical judgment. No one disputes that Ms. Cox's pregnancy has been extremely complicated. Any parents would

be devastated to learn of their unborn child's trisomany 18 diagnosis, the court said. That's another name for Edwards syndrome. Some difficulties in pregnancy, however, even serious ones, do not pose the heightened risk to the mother the exception encompasses, the court added. Today, we're going to break down some arguments about the case from the right and the left, and then my take. We'll be right back after this quick commercial break. First up, we'll start with what the left is saying. Many on the left are outraged by the Texas Supreme Court's ruling and says the case sets a frightening precedent. Some suggest we're likely to see many more cases like this in Texas and other states with similarly strict laws restricting abortion access. Others say the case shows how far the pro-life movement is willing to go to prevent abortions. In CNN, Mary Ziegler said Cox is exposing a

chilling truth about abortion law. Cox's case and others like it expose how unworkable abortion exceptions are under the current law in states with virtual bans, especially when they are attached to harsh penalties like life in prison. Conceding that a woman like Cox is right could threaten to send much else about criminal abortion laws toppling down, Ziegler said. Suits like Cox's expose how hard it would be to devise a workable abortion exception if states required harsh punishment. Texas, for example, authorizes life in prison for abortion. Republican lawmakers often seem to want it both ways on abortion. They define themselves as pro-life but insist on compassion for women, especially in the so-called hard cases like Cox's. But what is happening in Texas complicates that narrative, Ziegler said.

Texas claims compassion for women but requires that their lives or a major bodily function be at imminent risk before a doctor can step in. And Texas claims to protect life by forcing a woman like Cox to carry a child who almost certainly won't live while threatening her ability to have a child who will. In The Guardian, Moira Donegan argued Cox's case won't be the last. By refusing to let her end this pregnancy, Paxton and the state of Texas in effect allowed Kate Cox to be tortured and that she was forced to flee to escape that torture. Cox will not be the last woman in this position. She will not be the last woman to make a public plea to be permitted an abortion for a dangerous

and non-viable pregnancy. She will not be the last one who is denied. She's part of a growing cast of abortion rights plaintiffs, a product of Dobbs' cruelties and of the shifting strategic posture of the reproductive rights movement, Donegan said. The way we talk about abortion has warped in the wake of Dobbs. We use bloodless language of gestational limits. We may even be tempted to describe once unheard of 15-week bans as comparatively moderate. We look on the bright side, like to the fact that Cox denied the care that will keep her healthy and alive in Texas was able to go elsewhere, Donegan wrote. Two years ago, a woman in Cox's shoes was able to control her own body and life on her own terms. Now she has to go before a court, all her virtues on display, and beg not to be maimed.

In the Austin American-Statesman, Laura Hermer wrote, in opposing Cox's bid to get an abortion, Paxton showed his cards. Women like the ones in these lawsuits who have doomed fetuses or doomed pregnancies are trying to make the least awful decision for themselves and their families in response to a terrible unwanted situation. Preventing Texas physicians from providing them with standard medical care and abortion under such circumstances isn't protecting life. We don't prevent physicians from providing life-saving care to someone who had a heart attack, Harmer said. This isn't about protecting innocent fetuses. It is not about getting government out of the lives of Texans. Rather, it's about dehumanizing women by subordinating their will to their biology. protecting innocent fetuses. It is not about getting government out of the lives of Texans.

Rather, it's about dehumanizing women by subordinating their will to their biology. Women of reproductive age know better than anyone that they are biological beings. They menstruate. They ovulate. They know they can get pregnant with all that pregnancy entails. In Texas, pregnancy now means that the pregnant woman exists primarily as a host for her fetus. Everything else is subordinate. Paxton knows this, Hermer wrote. Paxton is not pro-life, nor is anyone who supports his office's conduct on this issue. All right, that is it for the leftist thing, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right mostly supports the court's decision, but acknowledges the challenging elements of the case. Some say potential birth defects or disabilities are not reason enough to justify an abortion, even if there is some risk to the mother. Others say Paxson went too far in his

interpretation of the law and undermine what the pro-life movement is supposed to represent. In Red State, Jennifer Oliver O'Connell suggested we need to look beyond the talking points when discussing this case. Trisomy 18, or Edwards Syndrome, is not always a fatal diagnosis. It's a troubling one that can result in pregnancy complications, birth defects, and a stillborn birth. But trying to paint it solely as destructive to the child and the mother is wrong. How do we know? Because families have chosen to ignore a

diagnosis or a warning and have allowed their child to go to full term. Former Senator Rick Santorum and his wife Karen made this choice in 2008, O'Connell wrote. The Santorums are devout Catholics. They have eight children and chose life despite the diagnosis. Bella just celebrated her 15th birthday. What has occurred in Texas is troubling no matter which side you are on. There are no winners, and the biggest loss is that baby girl Cox was not given a chance to be, O'Connell added. Why do we wish to discard children, especially potentially special needs or health-challenged children, rather than do all we can to help them survive and thrive, no matter how long that might be? Why do we not give families making this difficult decision the

support necessary to see life not as an option but as the only quality choice? In The Federalist, Rachel Roth Altheiser said the case exposes the need for protections for disabled children. As Cox v. Texas demonstrates, children with other genetic conditions are at great risk across the country. Ms. Cox alleges that the current abortion ban targets her constitutional right as a Texan, and she and her physicians believe continuing her pregnancy threatens her life and liberty, despite compelling evidence, Alhauser wrote. States that have passed abortion restrictions need to understand that provisions explicitly protecting disabled children are critical to the pro-life position. The power of the state should be focused on protecting the truly vulnerable. When my own son was diagnosed with a set of fatal birth defects at 17 weeks

gestation here in North Carolina, it was indeed devastating, but my health was not at risk. My son and those like him deserve the same protection that is afforded to unborn children with Down syndrome under North Carolina law. Anything less is not acceptable. Diagnosis of a particular disability should not threaten a child's right to life, whether in the womb or out of it, or cause a mother to egregiously argue that her child's disability threatens her life. In the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nicole Russell argued that Paxton's threat to doctors over abortion isn't pro-life. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond

Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases

have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province.

Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCellVax.ca. and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. This is a lose-lose situation for everyone, most of all for Cox. Paxton's punitive statement seems anathema to the pro-life movement that enacted Texas' abortion ban, Russell said.

If Cox is forced to go through with the pregnancy and survives, her baby could die and she may struggle to conceive again. If Cox is allowed to have an abortion, she still loses her baby. She may not conceive again. For a mother, for parents who desire children, both of these are heartbreaking. This is the reality of life that all laws about abortion attempt to address. Paxton's attempt to enforce the law is understandable from a legal standpoint, but stunning from a medical, empathetic, or even optical view. The punitive nature of Texas's law was always a bridge too far, an anathema to the

pro-life movement, which seeks to aid mothers in keeping, loving, and raising their precious children. Life is the goal, not fear. A law that seeks to punish a doctor for trying to keep her patient alive and healthy is not wise or good. Alright, that is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So, in the last four years, I've written publicly about abortion a lot in Tangle, so you can read my old pieces if you want a fleshatism to promote state intervention on issues with a great deal of moral ambiguity and a divided public. Of course, that perspective is informed by my own personal moral and religious feelings. Any question intersecting with religion and morality is incredibly complicated, but I've explained how I came to my views in the past. I know that millions of smart and sincere

people disagree with me. Virtuous ethical, moral, and legal arguments in the pro-life movement abound, especially among pro-lifers who consistently carry that ethic across various issues. We published a reader essay from one of those people a few years ago, and I encourage you to read it. Fundamentally, I believe there are good legal and ethical reasons to have certain limits on abortion, and I don't view pro-lifers as insidious evil zealots trying to reduce women to nothing more than child bearers. All that being said, I do think this case is an example of the pro-choice side's nightmare scenario of how abortion restrictions infringe on a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. Kate Cox was stuck in an incredibly painful and difficult spot, one that, according to Texas state law, should have been left up to her and her doctor. Instead of facing a system that greatly

limits abortion but also protects the judgment of medical professionals to allow them, which is what Texas's abortion law is supposed to do, she ran into an attorney general penning threatening letters in a court system that split hairs on her doctor's language to refuse to afford her those protections. And for what? She just crossed the state line and got an abortion anyway. This is a moral and legal failure by the pro-life movement in Texas, and it's counterproductive to their ultimate goal of winning more people over politically. Many in the pro-life movement have contended that Cox doesn't get to kill a child because

the fetus has a disability, which are the moral grounds they want to have this argument on. But that is a reductive and disingenuous framing of the choice she faced. It is true that Cox could have carried her pregnancy to term, facing huge odds of a stillbirth or a baby who would not survive their first month. It is also true that she may have been able to do that without hurting her chances of having children in the future. It's even possible, though incredibly unlikely, that her child could have lived into their

teens or even adulthood. On the other hand, it was exceedingly likely that everything would have gone the opposite direction. Her child would very likely have died before birth, shortly after birth, or in the first year of their life, and by bringing her pregnancy to term, Cox would have risked her chances of having children in the future, which she has said she wants to do. What a fraught, tragic, awful position for an expecting mother to be in. It is mind-boggling to me that anyone in a free country like America thinks someone like Cox should have that decision made for her,

should have her options limited by a group of state Supreme Court justices or a state attorney general. Imagine an alternative reality where Cox had been permitted the right to her abortion because her doctor explained clearly the risk to her unborn child and to her future prospects of being a mother. Imagine Texas being able to say, see, we will make exceptions when doctors in the state tell us that a woman's life or health is in danger, while also being able to say it's standing on its ground against abortion by letting the case go to court. If you were going to have strict abortion restrictions in law, balancing those freedoms with the opinions of medical professionals is a necessity for a holistic pro-life position. But the opportunity wasn't just missed, it was actively avoided in

favor of the most punitive position possible. And to be clear, Cox's doctor was not particularly ambiguous about what was going on. As her legal team argued in the original complaint, quote, it is also Dr. Carson's good faith belief and medical recommendation that the emergent medical condition exception to Texas's abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox's circumstances as Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, Cox has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from her current pregnancy that places her at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of her reproductive functions if a D&E abortion is not performed. Does anyone really think there is much ambiguity in that statement? While judges should not be prioritizing political

optics, it's my job to analyze them, and it's impossible to ignore the political ramifications of decisions like this. Democrats are cleaning up in elections across the country on abortion rights already, and if you are interested in how they might drag President Biden across the finish line in the 2024 race, or regain control of the House, or hold on to a slim majority in the Senate, this is your answer. Being able to point to states like Texas and say, look at how they are treating women's rights on the most difficult, thorny personal choices there are, will be their number one strategy. We'll be right back after this quick break.

All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from Alex in Chicago, Illinois, who said, What gives you hope for 2024 and the future? Alex, oh God, thank you for this question. With all the terrible things that have been dominating the news lately, it is a good reminder that we have to remember what's working in our country and what's good in the world. It's also widely known that there's a negative bias in media and that news organizations emphasize bad news and that readers do too. That's part of the reason we finish every weekday newsletter with a good news story.

On that note, let's start with what we covered at the end of Monday's newsletter. Childhood mortality has plummeted over the past century, and it's continuing to go down all over the globe. But it's not just childhood mortality that's improved over the past century. Life expectancy has exploded, so has literacy. At the same time, despite a recent uptick, crime in the United States has been decreasing over the past 25 years, and violence as a whole across human civilization is way down. We often think of the world we're born into as being normal, but we are currently living in a period of general prosperity, and I'm hopeful that will continue. Fundamentally, we are becoming healthier,

better educated, and more peaceful as a species. Speaking of education, I'm also optimistic about scientific progress and what the future holds. As Derek Thompson wrote during the COVID pandemic, we're seeing alternative energy getting more affordable, AI making us more efficient, and even mRNA vaccines becoming a more proven technology. Now, none of those advancements are risk-free, of course. More alternative energy could mean different kinds of environmental damage or spurts of high energy costs. Certain vaccines could create certain health risks. AI has struck fear into plenty of technologists. But long-term, I think each one offers way more upside than they do downside.

It is not hard for me to imagine a world in the near future where technology allows us to live more prosperously and do less damage to our planet while working a little less and spending a little more time with family and friends, all with more access to better medical treatments and more robust disease prevention. The last thing that makes me optimistic is just doing this work. I took a big risk in betting on there being an appetite for nonpartisan news that exposes you to opinions outside of your bubble, and you have all rewarded me. I started to do our little end-of-the-year look back, and there is just so much good news from Tangle. And that means that there are thousands of you who value work like this, and there are probably hundreds of thousands more. In an era of hyper-partisanship, online echo chambers, and so much more divisive rhetoric, I'm hopeful more than ever that there

are people out there who want to come together to fix the many broken parts of our politics and media ecosystem. All right, that is it for your questions answered, which brings us to our under-the- the radar section. Muslim Americans in swing states have launched a national campaign against the re-election of President Joe Biden for his handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict. The leaders met in Dearborn, Michigan earlier this month and convened others from states like Minnesota, Arizona, Wisconsin, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, all starting a campaign to hashtag abandon Biden and vowing to make him a one-term president. The creation of the campaign speaks

to the mounting political pressure facing Biden from Muslim and Arab leaders, frustrated by his refusal to step in and call for Israeli leaders to enter a ceasefire. Politico and CBS News have the story and there's a link to it in today's episode description. All right, that is it for our Under the Radar section, which brings us to our numbers. The percentage of Americans who say it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion if she wants it for any reason is 55%, according to a Wall Street Journal Newark poll published in November. The percent increase in support for access to illegal abortion for any reason since 1973 is 18%. The number of U.S. states where abortion is banned in almost all circumstances is 14,

and the number of U.S. states that do not ban abortion outright but restrict abortion access earlier in pregnancy than the standard set by Roe v. Wade is seven. The number of plaintiffs challenging Texas's abortion law after seven more women joined an ongoing lawsuit last month is now 22. The sentencing range for physicians convicted of performing an illegal abortion in Texas is 5 to 99 years, and the amount that a private citizen can sue to collect from anyone who funds, facilitates, or provides illegal abortion care in Texas is $10,000. All right, and last but not least, our Have a Nice Day section.

At elementary schools across Louisville, Kentucky, I learned how to say that in Kentucky, by the way, Louisville. It's not Louisville. They all got mad at me for saying that. At elementary schools across Louisville, Kentucky, dozens of dads show up once a month to start the morning with hugs, high fives, smiles, and support. They call themselves the Flash Dads, and they started greeting kids at the Jefferson County Public Schools in Kentucky seven years ago. Now, there are several dozen men who go to elementary schools all across Louisville and line up to greet students, helping them start their day on a positive note. The Flash Dads are community members showing up for students who sometimes

don't have anybody showing up for them, participant Roger Collins said. Another member of the Flash Dads, James Bogan, signed up so he could surprise his grandson one day at school. It's contagious, and I've been doing it ever since, he said. We're not just there that day. We're there whenever you need us. It's not a one-day thing. It's a lifetime thing. Yahoo News has the story,

and there's a link to it in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's podcast. As always, if you want to support our work, please go to retangle.com forward slash membership. Don't forget, we've got a new video up on our YouTube channel where I sat down with Marianne Williamson for about an hour to talk about her presidential campaign. Highly suggest going to watch that. We'll be right back here same time tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. If you're looking for more from Tangle, please go to readtangle.com and check out our website. Thanks for watching. history and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease.

Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection

is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCellVax.ca.