In a recent oral argument before the Texas Supreme Court, lawyers from the state's attorney general's office defended Texas's strict abortion ban by asserting that women should sue their doctors, not the state, over a lack of access to abortion. The case, Zurawski v. Texas, challenges the abortion ban that prohibits doctors from performing abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, with exceptions only in cases where the life of the mother is at risk.

During the proceedings, Beth Klusmann of the Texas Attorney General's Office emphasized that if a woman experienced complications such as bleeding or amniotic fluid leakage, the problem lies with the doctors, not the law itself. This response aimed to counter the plaintiffs' argument that the legislation has caused a healthcare crisis in the state.

The lawsuit, brought by the Center for Reproductive Freedom, involved 22 women who alleged that the state law compelled them to carry nonviable and dangerous pregnancies to term. They argued that doctors denied them care because their conditions were not considered immediately life-threatening, although they posed a serious risk.

The plaintiffs contended that the 2021 law contradicted the historical practice of allowing physicians broad discretion in determining when abortion was necessary to preserve the mother's health. They claimed that the law's vague language and severe penalties effectively amounted to a total abortion ban, endangering the lives of women already carrying nonviable fetuses.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office argued that the lawsuit was unnecessary since the ban permitted abortions in cases involving a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by pregnancy. They insisted that the plaintiffs should direct their grievances towards the doctors who denied them the medically necessary procedures, rather than the state.

As the arguments unfolded, the Texas Supreme Court focused on the notion that the women had no standing to sue the state because they were injured by their medical practitioners, not by the law itself. Justice Brett Busby questioned why the women were not suing their doctors for potential medical negligence.

The case of one plaintiff, Zurawski, highlighted the dire consequences of the abortion ban. Her doctors informed her that her pregnancy, which had reached almost 18 weeks, was no longer viable due to a problem with her cervix. However, because of the ban, the doctors were unable to perform an abortion. As a result, Zurawski was sent home, where her water eventually broke. Despite growing progressively sicker, she was unable to receive the necessary care until her husband brought her back to the emergency room, where she was diagnosed with sepsis, a life-threatening infection.

The outcome of the Zurawski v. Texas case will have significant implications for women's access to abortion in the state. The arguments made by the Texas Attorney General's Office highlight a shift in responsibility from the state to medical practitioners while defending the controversial abortion ban. The Texas Supreme Court's decision will determine the path forward for women seeking to assert their reproductive rights and address the challenges posed by the legislation.