Skip to content
Center for Reproductive Rights
Center for Reproductive Rights

Primary Menu

  • About
    • Overview
    • The Center’s Impact
    • Center Leadership & Staff
    • Annual Reports
    • Corporate Engagement
    • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Work
    • Overview
    • Litigation
    • Legal Policy and Advocacy
    • Resources & Research
    • Recent Case Highlights
    • Landmark Cases
    • Cases Archive
    • World’s Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
  • Issues
    • Overview
    • Abortion
    • Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
    • Assisted Reproduction
    • Contraception
    • Humanitarian Settings
    • Maternal Health
    • COVID-19
  • Regions
    • Overview
    • Global Advocacy
    • Africa
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • United States
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Stories
    • Events
    • Center in the Spotlight
    • Press Releases
    • Statements
    • Press Room
    • Newsletters
  • Resources
    • Resources & Research
    • U.S. Abortion Rights: Resources
    • Maps
    • World Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
    • Repro Red Flags: Agency Watch
  • Act
    • Overview
    • Give
    • Act
    • Learn
  • Donate
    • Become a Monthly Donor
    • Make a Donor Advised Fund Gift
    • Leave a Legacy Gift
    • Donate Gifts of Stock
    • Give a Gift in Honor
    • Attend an Event
    • Employee Matching Gifts
    • Mail a Check
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Donate
icon-hamburger icon-magnifying-glass Donate
icon-magnifying-glass-teal

More Women Join Lawsuit Against Texas After Being Denied Abortion Care Despite Dangerous Pregnancy Complications

Center for Reproductive Rights - Center for Reproductive Rights - search logo
search Close Close icon
Center for Reproductive Rights -
Menu Close Menu Close icon
Donate

Primary Menu

  • About
    • Overview
    • The Center’s Impact
    • Center Leadership & Staff
    • Annual Reports
    • Corporate Engagement
    • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Work
    • Overview
    • Litigation
    • Legal Policy and Advocacy
    • Resources & Research
    • Recent Case Highlights
    • Landmark Cases
    • Cases Archive
    • World’s Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
  • Issues
    • Overview
    • Abortion
    • Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
    • Assisted Reproduction
    • Contraception
    • Humanitarian Settings
    • Maternal Health
    • COVID-19
  • Regions
    • Overview
    • Global Advocacy
    • Africa
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • United States
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Stories
    • Events
    • Center in the Spotlight
    • Press Releases
    • Statements
    • Press Room
    • Newsletters
  • Resources
    • Resources & Research
    • U.S. Abortion Rights: Resources
    • Maps
    • World Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
    • Repro Red Flags: Agency Watch
  • Act
    • Overview
    • Give
    • Act
    • Learn
  • Donate
    • Become a Monthly Donor
    • Make a Donor Advised Fund Gift
    • Leave a Legacy Gift
    • Donate Gifts of Stock
    • Give a Gift in Honor
    • Attend an Event
    • Employee Matching Gifts
    • Mail a Check
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn

Related Content

Issues:

Abortion, Legal Restrictions

Regions:

United States

Work:

In the Courts

Type:

News, Story

Follow the Center

Donate Now

Join Now

11.14.2023

In the Courts Abortion United States Story

More Women Join Lawsuit Against Texas After Being Denied Abortion Care Despite Dangerous Pregnancy Complications

Nat Ray
Number of women harmed by the state’s abortion bans continues to grow as case heads to the Texas Supreme Court November 28.

Share

  • facebook
  • Twitter
  • linkedin
  • Email id
©Brooklyn Production/Corbis

Seven additional Texas women have joined a Center for Reproductive Rights lawsuit against the state after being denied medically necessary abortion care for their severe and dangerous pregnancy complications. After today’s filing, there are now 22 plaintiffs in the case, Zurawski v. State of Texas.

The move comes as the Texas Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case on November 28.

“This lawsuit started with five women and has grown continuously as more women come forward with their traumatic experiences,” said Molly Duane, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center. “The numbers will continue to grow until the state of Texas gives doctors clarity on who they can help and when. Yet, the Texas government is doubling down on these laws that continue to risk the lives and health of every pregnant person in Texas. All we are asking for is common-sense guidance that will allow doctors to use their good faith judgment without fearing loss of their license and life in prison.”

More about the case: Zurawski v. State of TexasMore about the case: Zurawski v. State of Texas link

More about the case: Zurawski v. State of Texas

Filed by the Center in March, Zurawski v. State of Texas asks the court to give doctors clarity on what circumstances qualify as “medical emergency” exceptions in the state’s abortion bans and allow doctors to use their own medical judgment without fear of prosecution. The lawsuit argues that the Texas state constitution protects the right to obtain an abortion when facing life- or health-threatening conditions. 

The seven plaintiffs added today were each denied abortion care in Texas despite facing pregnancy complications including devastating fetal diagnoses and life-threatening sepsis infections. They were either forced to travel hundreds or thousands of miles out of state or wait until they were near death to receive care.

“Texas’s abortion ban put my health at risk and would have forced my baby to suffer if I didn’t flee the state,” said Kimberly Manzano, one of the new plaintiffs, who was devastated to learn her baby’s organs had not developed properly. “I fought so hard for this pregnancy, but it became clear that my health was in jeopardy and my baby had no chance of survival. I had previously considered myself anti-abortion, but through this my opinion has changed.”

Speaking out against Texas’s abortion bans:

“It’s not safe to be pregnant in Texas—I say this as both a doctor and a patient. . . I was made to feel like a criminal for seeking urgent medical care.”    —Dr. Danielle Mathisen, plaintiff

“It is unforgivable what the state of Texas put my family though, and I am immensely proud of my wife for joining this lawsuit and fighting so others don’t have to suffer like she did.” —Jacob Lopez, husband of plaintiff D. Aylen

“No one should have to flee Texas to get necessary medical treatment. I hope by joining this lawsuit I can protect others from that agony.”  —Kimberly Manzano, plaintiff

Abortion Bans’ Severe Penalties Deter Doctors from Providing Patient Care

Texas has multiple overlapping abortion restrictions including a state trigger ban, which completely prohibits abortion; S.B. 8, the “vigilante” law banning abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy; and a pre-Roe criminal ban that multiple courts deem repealed by implication. Physicians found to have violated these laws face fines of at least $100,000, up to 99 years in prison, and revocation of their state medical licenses.

Such legal risks, combined with the bans’ unclear language, are deterring Texas physicians from providing their patients with abortion care—a necessary, life-saving procedure crucial for treating many dangerous obstetric conditions.

Noting that “Texas is in the midst of a health care crisis,” the amended complaint filed today argues that abortion is necessary health care being denied under Texas’s abortion bans; the bans are preventing pregnant people from receiving the standard of medical care in times of crisis; and pervasive fear and uncertainty throughout the medical community regarding the scope of the life and health exceptions have put patients’ lives and physicians’ liberty at grave risk.

Texas Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Zurawski v. State of Texas on November 28 

After a July hearing in Texas state court, on August 4 the judge issued an injunction blocking Texas’s abortion bans as they apply to dangerous pregnancy complications, clarifying that doctors can use their own medical judgment to determine when to provide abortion care in emergency situations. The ruling also denied the state’s request to throw out the case, and it found S.B. 8—Texas’s citizen-enforced abortion ban—unconstitutional. The judge recognized in her ruling that the women who brought the case should have been given abortions.

The state immediately appealed the ruling to the Texas Supreme Court, blocking it from taking effect and leaving the bans in place. 

On November 28, the Texas Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case. The arguments will be livestreamed on the Court’s YouTube site. (While the Court’s proceedings begin at 9:00 a.m. CT/10:00 a.m. ET, it is not known in what order the Court will hear its cases.)

Watch the livestream November 28.

The Texas Supreme Court will hear arguments in this case, Zurawski v. State of Texas, November 28. Watch the livestream using the above link.

Plaintiffs’ Stories Underscore Danger of Extreme Abortion Bans

As with other plaintiffs in the case, the experiences of the women joining the case today exemplify the harms that Texas’s bans pose to people’s lives, health, and fertility, and provide real-life examples of how Texans with obstetrical emergencies are not receiving medically necessary care. 

The new plaintiffs are listed below. Their stories can be found here.

  • Kristen Anaya, of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, was 16 ½ weeks pregnant when her water broke. Although she showed symptoms of sepsis, the hospital refused to provide her with abortion care until her infection became severe and threatened her life. 
  • Kaitlyn Kash, of Austin, discovered after her 13-week ultrasound that her baby had severe skeletal dysplasia—a condition affecting bone and cartilage growth—and was unlikely to survive until birth or would suffocate and die soon after. To obtain abortion care, she was forced to travel out of state to a clinic in Kansas, where protestors harassed her and other patients. 
  • D. Aylen, of San Antonio, discovered at about 17 weeks that her baby had a possible neural tube defect, and a diagnosis of anencephaly was confirmed soon after. Although most out-of-state clinics had four- to eight-week wait times, she was able to obtain care by traveling to San Diego.
  • Kimberly Manzano, of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, learned at 10 weeks that her baby’s organs were growing outside the body and the baby had no chance of survival. By carrying the pregnancy, Kimberly’s health was at risk due to the likelihood of infection. Devout Christians formerly opposed to abortion, she and her husband realized that abortion was their only option and traveled to New Mexico to obtain care.
  • Dr. Danielle Mathisen, formerly of the Fort Worth area, still lived in Texas when at her 18-week anatomy scan she learned her baby had several lethal fetal conditions—including a hole in the spine and no formed brain structures—and was unlikely to survive until birth or would suffocate and die soon after birth. With clinics in Colorado overflowing with Texans, Dr. Mathisen traveled to New Mexico to obtain care. 
  • Cristina Nuñez, of El Paso, has several medical conditions—including diabetes, cardiovascular issues, and end-stage renal disease—that made carrying a pregnancy dangerous. Discovering she was six weeks pregnant, Cristina requested an abortion but was denied. Over the next few weeks, her health rapidly deteriorated, and although she faced a risk of a pulmonary embolism, she was refused an abortion by hospital staff until 11 days later—and only after Cristina contacted an organization for legal support.
  • Amy Coronado, of Houston, was several months into her pregnancy when she learned her baby had “multiple brain anomalies” consistent with alobar holoprosencephaly and had little to no chance of survival. If she continued the pregnancy, she would face risks to her own health, including complications from her gestational diabetes and the threat of infection. Although her insurance did not cover out-of-state procedures, she made the trip to New Mexico to obtain the care she needed. 

Read more of the plaintiffs’ stories here. 

“The only way I could help my wife during this agonizing ordeal was to get her out of Texas… We ultimately had to travel over 2,000 miles round trip to get her essential health care. And we’re talking about health care that was available locally just a couple years ago.”

Jacob Lopez, husband of plaintiff D. Aylen

Tags: Texas abortion law, texas exceptions case, Zurawski v. Texas, women denied abortions, Zurawski v. State of Texas, Texas abortion bans, new Texas plaintiffs, Texas lawsuit

Related Posts

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Texas Abortion Ban Ends Almost All Care in the State

Late last night, in a contentious 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the emergency request filed by the Center...

Abortion, Legal Restrictions,United States,In the Courts
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Texas Abortion Ban Ends Almost All Care in the State

Texas Abortion Ban Update: DOJ Lawsuit, UN Condemnation

The Department of Justice claims the law violates constitutional rights, while UN human rights experts call it a violation of...

Abortion, Legal Restrictions,United States,In the Courts
Texas Abortion Ban Update: DOJ Lawsuit, UN Condemnation

Provider Explains in Washington Post Op-ed Why He Violated Texas’s Extreme Abortion Ban

Dr. Alan Braid, one of the plaintiffs in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, the Center's case challenging Texas’s extreme abortion...

Abortion, Legal Restrictions,United States,In the Courts
Provider Explains in Washington Post Op-ed Why He Violated Texas’s Extreme Abortion Ban

Sign up for email updates.

The most up-to-date news on reproductive rights, delivered straight to you.

Footer Menu

  • Careers
  • Privacy Policy
  • Gift Acceptance Policy
  • Contact Us

Center for Reproductive Rights
© (1992-2024)

Use of this site signifies agreement with our disclaimer and privacy policy.

Better Business Bureau Charity Watch Top Rated Center for Reproductive Rights
This site uses necessary, analytics and social media cookies to improve your experience and deliver targeted advertising. Click "Options" or click here to learn more and customize your cookie settings, otherwise please click "Accept" to proceed.
OPTIONSACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
CookieDurationDescription
_ga2 yearsThis cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to calculate visitor, session, campaign data and keep track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookies store information anonymously and assign a randomly generated number to identify unique visitors.
_gat_UA-6619340-11 minuteNo description
_gid1 dayThis cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to store information of how visitors use a website and helps in creating an analytics report of how the wbsite is doing. The data collected including the number visitors, the source where they have come from, and the pages viisted in an anonymous form.
_parsely_session30 minutesThis cookie is used to track the behavior of a user within the current session.
HotJar: _hjAbsoluteSessionInProgress30 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjFirstSeen30 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjid1 yearThis cookie is set by Hotjar. This cookie is set when the customer first lands on a page with the Hotjar script. It is used to persist the random user ID, unique to that site on the browser. This ensures that behavior in subsequent visits to the same site will be attributed to the same user ID.
HotJar: _hjIncludedInPageviewSample2 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjIncludedInSessionSample2 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjTLDTestsessionNo description
SSCVER1 year 24 daysThe domain of this cookie is owned by Nielsen. The cookie is used for online advertising by creating user profile based on their preferences.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
CookieDurationDescription
_fbp3 monthsThis cookie is set by Facebook to deliver advertisement when they are on Facebook or a digital platform powered by Facebook advertising after visiting this website.
fr3 monthsThe cookie is set by Facebook to show relevant advertisments to the users and measure and improve the advertisements. The cookie also tracks the behavior of the user across the web on sites that have Facebook pixel or Facebook social plugin.
IDE1 year 24 daysUsed by Google DoubleClick and stores information about how the user uses the website and any other advertisement before visiting the website. This is used to present users with ads that are relevant to them according to the user profile.
IMRID1 year 24 daysThe domain of this cookie is owned by Nielsen. The cookie is used for storing the start and end of the user session for nielsen statistics. It helps in consumer profiling for online advertising.
personalization_id2 yearsThis cookie is set by twitter.com. It is used integrate the sharing features of this social media. It also stores information about how the user uses the website for tracking and targeting.
TDID1 yearThe cookie is set by CloudFare service to store a unique ID to identify a returning users device which then is used for targeted advertising.
test_cookie15 minutesThis cookie is set by doubleclick.net. The purpose of the cookie is to determine if the user's browser supports cookies.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
CookieDurationDescription
adEdition1 dayNo description
akaas_MSNBC10 daysNo description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional1 yearThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others1 yearNo description
geoEdition1 dayNo description
next-i18next1 yearNo description
SAVE & ACCEPT
Powered by CookieYes Logo
Scroll Up