The Texas Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed a challenge against the state’s near-total abortion ban brought by 20 women who claimed they were denied medically necessary abortions. The case, joined by two doctors, sought clarification on the ban’s exception for medical emergencies, which plaintiffs argued was too ambiguous and placed patients in danger while causing doctors to fear legal consequences.

In its ruling, the court, composed entirely of Republican justices, maintained that Texas law permits abortions to save the life of a woman or to prevent serious physical impairment based on reasonable medical judgment. Justice Jane Bland, representing the court, emphasized that doctors can intervene in life-threatening conditions without fearing legal repercussions.

The lead plaintiff, Amanda Zurawski, experienced severe complications during her pregnancy but was denied an abortion due to the fetal heartbeat. She developed sepsis and endured days in intensive care. Other plaintiffs shared similar experiences; some sought abortions out of state, while others waited until their health worsened enough for the procedure to be legally permitted.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and anti-abortion groups lauded the ruling. Paxton reaffirmed his commitment to defending the state’s laws, asserting they protect both mothers and babies. Meanwhile, the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented the plaintiffs, criticized the decision for failing to provide necessary clarity for doctors and patients.

This ruling has significant implications as similar legal battles unfold in other states, questioning the practical applications of medical exemptions under strict abortion bans.