Human dignity is threatened in Texas

A Texas judge granted an emergency exemption Thursday, allowing Katie Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant with a disabled child, to procure an abortion for medical reasons. Texas has one of the most controversial and stringent abortion bans in the United States, as a result of the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade last summer. Late Friday night, the Texas Supreme Court paused the judge’s exemption.

The mother’s team of physicians cited “health concerns” and concern for “future fertility” of the mother, should she continue with her pregnancy, which they determine has a “high chance of miscarriage” and “little chance of survival post-birth.”

But a disabled child is not a threat to a mother’s life.

If carrying a disabled child can now be coded under a medical complication for the mother, exemptions to a law passed in protection of the unborn will undermine its effectiveness. An unequal regard for human life will be passed down to the most vulnerable—disabled infants.

Physicians can overstate facts when delivering difficult results of prenatal genetic testing. Doctors often present the worst-case scenario regarding complications and severity of a child’s condition as a hedge against medical malpractice suits. I know, because it happened to me.

When my own son received a fatal diagnosis at 17 weeks gestation, I was heartbroken. However, I was determined that the date of my son’s death was not something I would control, whether through pursuing termination or, though not yet available in our country, medical euthanasia at birth. The days of my son’s life belong safely in my care, not under threat from my own physicians or my own fear of health risks.

This mother in Texas received her child’s diagnosis of Trisomy 18 just days ago and is already seeking termination. What this mother needs is a consultation with a palliative and complex care team of pediatricians, not a fast track to termination.

It’s simply not true that carrying a disabled child will result in health complications for the mother, or will threaten future fertility, as Ms. Cox’s lawyers argued. What carrying a disabled child with or without a most likely fatal diagnosis will do, however, is put parents’ face to face with their own mortality. It is easier to have a physician terminate and dismember a fetus of 20-weeks gestation than let nature take its course, however painful.

Most likely, Ms. Cox’s child will die soon after birth as a result of this diagnosed medical condition. But the date and time of this child’s impending death are not up to Ms. Cox and her team of physicians. Instead of finding a workaround to a stringent abortion ban that is extremely inconvenient precisely because it’s morally correct, Ms. Cox’s physicians should have a compassionate demeanor when regarding this helpless, disabled infant. Death, when it comes for this child, should be either safely in the womb of this mother, or in her arms.

Despite a fatal diagnosis, my son is still living. His life is complicated and painful, a result of profound disability due to multiple birth defects. He’s still my son. Had I procured a termination upon diagnosis, I would be cheating myself out of something more profound than my son’s disabilities—the chance to love and champion a small boy who cannot speak, see, or walk for himself.

Ms. Cox needs to understand that motherhood is not signing up for just the good stuff—kids that get straight A’s, play sports, paint pictures for the fridge, and make us proud because of their accomplishments. Motherhood goes much deeper.

Are you willing to give your time, resources, and comfort for the sake of another? If not, don’t seek motherhood. Carrying a disabled child does not, except in rare cases, threaten the life of the mother. Carrying a disabled child will, however, threaten our concept of the good life that most of us claim as a right—a vision of the good life free of death, disease, and pain.

Motherhood is a remarkable opportunity to face reality, and hope you’re made of sterner stuff. For Ms. Cox, if she terminates this child, she will lose the chance to practice radical self-denial for the sake of another. She will choose her own comfort, over that of a disabled child. She will cheat herself out of a greater, more profound purpose that is only found in the face of great suffering. This is what makes us human.

When we deny others the right to live because of a diagnosis, we deny ourselves, too. It’s not just her child’s humanity that is under threat today, but hers.