Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has taken legal action to prevent a Dallas woman, Kate Cox, from having an abortion. Paxton's office filed a petition with the Texas Supreme Court shortly before midnight on Thursday, seeking to overrule a temporary restraining order granted by a Travis County district judge. The order allowed Cox, 31, to terminate her nonviable pregnancy, which is the first such case since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

In addition to filing the petition, Paxton sent letters to three hospitals, warning of potential legal consequences if they went ahead with performing the abortion. The move by Paxton's office has sparked controversy and legal debates regarding women's reproductive rights.

The Texas Supreme Court is already considering a similar case, Zurawski v. Texas, which involves 20 women who claim they were denied medically necessary abortions due to new state laws. However, Paxton argues that those women do not have standing to sue because they are not actively seeking abortions, unlike Cox.

Cox, represented by attorneys from the Center for Reproductive Rights, contends that she cannot wait for the Texas Supreme Court to make a ruling, as it could take weeks or even months. Her lawyers emphasize that her nonviable pregnancy poses a threat to her life and future fertility, necessitating an abortion.

Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble sided with Cox, stating that forcing her to continue the pregnancy would be a "miscarriage of justice." The state, however, disagrees and warns that allowing the abortion to proceed could give rise to further requests beyond the scope of the medical exception.

Meanwhile, Cox's attorney, Molly Duane, has called for a hearing to address Paxton's threatening letter to hospitals. Duane argues that the letter, containing explicit threats of criminal and civil enforcement and penalties, is preventing hospitals from providing Cox with the necessary healthcare. She requests that the court consider sanctions against Paxton.

The central question in both Cox's case and Zurawski v. Texas is whether a lethal fetal anomaly warrants an abortion under the narrow medical exception to the state's near-total abortion ban. As the Texas Supreme Court now faces these arguments on a compressed timeline, the decision will have significant implications for the future of reproductive rights in the state.

Texans are urged to stay informed, as the outcome of these legal battles will have long-term consequences. The Texas Tribune is actively providing fact-based journalism to report on these important developments. Support for their nonprofit newsroom through donations allows them to continue delivering in-depth news and information to millions of readers and the wider community.