A Tennessee court on Thursday temporarily blocked enforcement of a state law that it claims is unclear regarding the allowance of abortion for medical exceptions. The medical exception exemption was challenged in a lawsuit in September 2023 by two doctors and a total of seven women who claimed they were denied emergency abortions. As Live Action News previously detailed, at least one of the plaintiffs sought an abortion that was not necessary.

In their ruling, the three judge panel in the Tennessee Chancery Court in Davidson County agreed the law was unclear as to what would qualify as a medical exception. “The court finds that the issue of which conditions, and the timing of when they present and escalate to life-threatening conditions, constitute medical emergencies within the Medical Necessity Exception is demonstrably unclear,” the ruling said.

Reuters reported, “The preliminary order from a three-judge panel of the Tennessee Chancery Court in Davidson County late on Thursday, said that abortion must be allowed if a pregnant woman’s water breaks or her cervix dilates before a fetus is viable, or if the fetus has a fatal diagnosis that threatens the mother’s health.”

The Tennessee Lookout further detailed the judges’ clarification of certain situations that would qualify for an abortion, including “previable preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), inevitable abortion, defined as dilation of the cervix prior to viability of the pregnancy, either by preterm labor or cervical insufficiency, fatal fetal diagnoses that lead to maternal health conditions, such as severe preeclampsia and mirror syndrome associated with fetal hydrops, and fatal fetal diagnoses leading to an infection that will result in uterine rupture or potential loss of fertility.

Despite the court’s statement, induced abortion is not the standard of care for PPROM — or for any other such condition. Cervical insufficiency (or incompetent cervix) may actually be treated with the insertion of a cerclage. These conditions listed above do not require an induced abortion in which a child is intentionally and directly killed.

READ: Is Biden’s HHS pushing propaganda about ’emergency abortions’? You be the judge.

Ending a pregnancy does not necessitate killing a preborn child intentionally.

As Live Action News has shown, there is no instance in which it is necessary to commit an induced abortion — the direct and intentional killing of the preborn child. In cases where there is a medical emergency, doctors can deliver the baby with the intention to save the mother’s life; even if the baby dies as a result of the premature delivery, that death is not an induced abortion.

Nearly all preborn children in Tennessee are currently protected from induced abortion, except in cases of ‘medical necessity.’ Per the law, doctors who commit abortions under other circumstances could face up to 15 years in prison or fines of as much as $10,000. The text of the bill reads (emphases added):

The physician determined, in the physician’s good faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. No abortion shall be deemed authorized under this subdivision (c)(2) if performed on the basis of a claim or a diagnosis that the woman will engage in conduct that would result in her death or substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function or for any reason relating to her mental health; and

The physician performs or attempts to perform the abortion in the manner which, in the physician’s good faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at the time, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless in the physician’s good faith medical judgment, termination of the pregnancy in that manner would pose a greater risk of the death of the pregnant woman or substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. No such greater risk shall be deemed to exist if it is based on a claim or diagnosis that the woman will engage in conduct that would result in her death or substantial and irreversible.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti responded to the ruling by confirming that the law “allows pregnant women to receive all necessary care to address serious health risks.”

“The Court’s limited injunction order mirrors that understanding,” he said in a statement. “We all agree that doctors should save lives and protect their patients. We will continue to defend the law enacted by the people’s elected representatives.”

Urge Walmart, Costco, Kroger, and other major chains to resist pressure to dispense the abortion pill

A Tennessee court on Thursday temporarily blocked enforcement of a state law that it claims is unclear regarding the allowance of abortion for medical exceptions. The medical exception exemption was challenged in a lawsuit in September 2023 by two doctors and a total of seven women who claimed they were denied emergency abortions. As Live Action News previously detailed, at least one of the plaintiffs sought an abortion that was not necessary.

In their ruling, the three judge panel in the Tennessee Chancery Court in Davidson County agreed the law was unclear as to what would qualify as a medical exception. “The court finds that the issue of which conditions, and the timing of when they present and escalate to life-threatening conditions, constitute medical emergencies within the Medical Necessity Exception is demonstrably unclear,” the ruling said.

Reuters reported, “The preliminary order from a three-judge panel of the Tennessee Chancery Court in Davidson County late on Thursday, said that abortion must be allowed if a pregnant woman’s water breaks or her cervix dilates before a fetus is viable, or if the fetus has a fatal diagnosis that threatens the mother’s health.”

The Tennessee Lookout further detailed the judges’ clarification of certain situations that would qualify for an abortion, including “previable preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), inevitable abortion, defined as dilation of the cervix prior to viability of the pregnancy, either by preterm labor or cervical insufficiency, fatal fetal diagnoses that lead to maternal health conditions, such as severe preeclampsia and mirror syndrome associated with fetal hydrops, and fatal fetal diagnoses leading to an infection that will result in uterine rupture or potential loss of fertility.

Despite the court’s statement, induced abortion is not the standard of care for PPROM — or for any other such condition. Cervical insufficiency (or incompetent cervix) may actually be treated with the insertion of a cerclage. These conditions listed above do not require an induced abortion in which a child is intentionally and directly killed.

READ: Is Biden’s HHS pushing propaganda about ’emergency abortions’? You be the judge.

Ending a pregnancy does not necessitate killing a preborn child intentionally.

As Live Action News has shown, there is no instance in which it is necessary to commit an induced abortion — the direct and intentional killing of the preborn child. In cases where there is a medical emergency, doctors can deliver the baby with the intention to save the mother’s life; even if the baby dies as a result of the premature delivery, that death is not an induced abortion.

Nearly all preborn children in Tennessee are currently protected from induced abortion, except in cases of ‘medical necessity.’ Per the law, doctors who commit abortions under other circumstances could face up to 15 years in prison or fines of as much as $10,000. The text of the bill reads (emphases added):

The physician determined, in the physician’s good faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. No abortion shall be deemed authorized under this subdivision (c)(2) if performed on the basis of a claim or a diagnosis that the woman will engage in conduct that would result in her death or substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function or for any reason relating to her mental health; and

The physician performs or attempts to perform the abortion in the manner which, in the physician’s good faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at the time, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless in the physician’s good faith medical judgment, termination of the pregnancy in that manner would pose a greater risk of the death of the pregnant woman or substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. No such greater risk shall be deemed to exist if it is based on a claim or diagnosis that the woman will engage in conduct that would result in her death or substantial and irreversible.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti responded to the ruling by confirming that the law “allows pregnant women to receive all necessary care to address serious health risks.”

“The Court’s limited injunction order mirrors that understanding,” he said in a statement. “We all agree that doctors should save lives and protect their patients. We will continue to defend the law enacted by the people’s elected representatives.”

Urge Walmart, Costco, Kroger, and other major chains to resist pressure to dispense the abortion pill