Proposal to clarify when Texas doctors can perform life-saving abortions faces critical vote
The House is slated to vote on a bill to clarify Texas' near-total abortion ban Wednesday, after it passed the Senate unanimously last month. The bill is expected to garner bipartisan support, despite some concerns from both sides of the aisle.
Texas banned all abortions three years ago, with a narrow exception that allows doctors to terminate a pregnancy only to save a pregnant patient's life. Immediately, doctors and legal experts warned that this exception was too narrow and vaguely written, and the penalties too severe, to ensure that women could get life-saving care.
That has proven true in many cases. Dozens of women have come forward with stories of medically necessary abortions delayed or denied, and at least three women have died as a result of these laws. Faced with these stories, Republican lawmakers have conceded that the language of the law might need some clearing up.
Senate Bill 31, also called the Life of the Mother Act, does not expand the exceptions or restore abortion access. It instead aims to clarify when a doctor can terminate a pregnancy under the existing exceptions by aligning language between the state's abortion laws, codifying court rulings and requiring education for doctors and lawyers on the nuances of the law.
The bill was tightly negotiated among lobbyists for doctors and hospitals, anti-abortion groups and Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Bryan Hughes of Mineola and Rep. Charlie Geren of Fort Worth, who carried the bill.
'All of these groups are going to, with one voice, tell the medical community and moms and everyone else, 'Here's the law in Texas. It's clear. Let's follow the law,'' Hughes said on the Senate floor in late April.
In the Senate, Republicans threw their support behind the bill, while Democrats pushed back on its narrowness, noting that Texas law still does not allow abortions in cases of rape, incest or lethal fetal anomalies.
'The folks who are working on this fix are, from my perspective, the folks who have created the problem,' said Houston Sen. Molly Cook. 'Over the past four years, we've watched women suffer and die, and this bill is the confirmation that we all agree that something is broken in Texas.'
In the House, however, the bill may face headwinds from both directions. In a committee hearing last month, some conservative Republicans raised concerns that this bill offered a loophole enabling doctors to work around the strict limits of the law.
Rep. Mike Olcott, a Fort Worth Republican, asked what would prevent doctors from 'checking a box' to say a patient's life was in danger to provide 'abortion on demand,' a sentiment echoed by other conservatives on the committee.
The bill's architects have been careful to say this is not a 'choice' bill, but rather a bill aimed at addressing doctors' liability and pregnant women's health needs.
'I have voted for every anti-abortion bill that's been in front of the House since I've been here for 24 years,' Geren said at the committee. 'This is not a choice bill. This is a protect-the-mothers'-life bill.'
Some doctors groups, including the Texas chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have criticized the bill for not going far enough to protect doctors and the patients they treat. Others say these changes will be sufficient to free doctors to perform medically necessary abortions without fear of lengthy prison sentences and massive fines.
'At the end of the day, our hope is that political differences can be set aside, because at the heart of this is a pregnant mother whose health and safety are on the line,' Texas Hospital Association president John Hawkins said in a statement. 'Hospitals and doctors need to be able to act on the medical facts and merits in front of them, without fear of prosecution. We sincerely believe this will have an immediate and positive impact, helping us provide life-saving care to our patients.'
The House will also hear Senate Bill 33 on Wednesday, which prohibits a city or county from using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion-related expenses. The bill is aimed at Austin and San Antonio, where city officials have allocated budget dollars to support abortion funds that help pay for people to travel to abortion clinics out-of-state.
Disclosure: Texas Hospital Association has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
32 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump formally asks Congress to claw back approved spending targeted by DOGE
WASHINGTON — The White House on Tuesday officially asked Congress to claw back $9.4 billion in already approved spending, taking funding away from programs targeted by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. It's a process known as 'rescission,' which requires President Donald Trump to get approval from Congress to return money that had previously been appropriated. Trump's aides say the funding cuts target programs that promote liberal ideologies. The request, if it passes the House and Senate, would formally enshrine many of the spending cuts and freezes sought by DOGE. It comes at a time when Musk is extremely unhappy with the tax cut and spending plan making its way through Congress, calling it on Tuesday a 'disgusting abomination' for increasing the federal deficit. White House budget director Russ Vought said more rescission packages and other efforts to cut spending could follow if the current effort succeeds. ' Here's what to know about the rescissions request: The request to Congress is unlikely to meaningfully change the troublesome increase in the U.S. national debt. Tax revenues have been insufficient to cover the growing costs of Social Security, Medicare and other programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the government is on track to spend roughly $7 trillion this year, with the rescission request equaling just 0.1% of that total. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at Tuesday's briefing that Vought would continue to cut spending, hinting that there could be additional efforts to return funds. 'He has tools at his disposal to produce even more savings,' Leavitt said. Vought said he can send up additional rescissions at the end of the fiscal year in September 'and if Congress does not act on it, that funding expires.' 'It's one of the reasons why we are not putting all of our expectations in a typical rescissions process,' he added. A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview some of the items that would lose funding, said that $8.3 billion was being cut from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. NPR and PBS would also lose federal funding, as would the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, also known as PEPFAR. The spokesperson listed specific programs that the Trump administration considered wasteful, including $750,000 to reduce xenophobia in Venezuela, $67,000 for feeding insect powder to children in Madagascar and $3 million for circumcision, vasectomies and condoms in Zambia. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., complimented the planned cuts and pledged to pass them. 'This rescissions package reflects many of DOGE's findings and is one of the many legislative tools Republicans are using to restore fiscal sanity,' Johnson said. 'Congress will continue working closely with the White House to codify these recommendations, and the House will bring the package to the floor as quickly as possible.' Members of the House Freedom Caucus, among the chamber's most conservative lawmakers, said they would like to see additional rescission packages from the administration. 'We will support as many more rescissions packages the White House can send us in the coming weeks and months,' the group said in a press release. Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, gave the package a less optimistic greeting. 'Despite this fast track, the Senate Appropriations Committee will carefully review the rescissions package and examine the potential consequences of these rescissions on global health, national security, emergency communications in rural communities, and public radio and television stations,' the Maine lawmaker said in a statement. Boak writes for the Associated Press.
Fox News
33 minutes ago
- Fox News
Booker, Cruz spar over threats to US judges in fiery Senate spat
Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas., sparred Tuesday over the uptick in threats made to federal court judges during President Donald Trump's second term. Their heated standoff comes as federal judges have issued a record number of injunctions against the flurry of executive actions by the president. The testy exchange took place during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing titled "The Supposedly Least Dangerous Branch: District Judges v. Trump." Cruz, the subcommittee chair, used his remarks at the outset of the hearing to take aim at Democrats on the subcommittee, who he said were "utterly silent" about judicial threats under the Biden administration, including after threats were made against conservative Supreme Court justices. Cruz took aim at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for "unleashing" protesters who gathered outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh prior to their decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization – the landmark ruling that overturned a 50-year-old abortion rights precedent – which he later said was ironic given the current "pearl-clutching" stance of Democrats on the panel. His remarks sparked a quick rebuke from Booker, who said, "Something you said is actually dangerous, and it needs to be addressed." "This implication that there was silence [from Democrats on the panel] at a time there were threats on people's houses is absolutely absurd," he continued. "I remember the rhetoric and the comments, the concern from [Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del.]," Booker said. "I actually distinctly remember you, chairman, on more than one occasion, condemning those attacks on Republican-appointed jurists." "To say things like that just feeds the partisanship in this institution, and it feeds the fiery rhetoric. And it's just plain not true," Booker added. In response, Cruz argued the "angry mobs" that appeared outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices prior to their decision in Dobbs were in violation of U.S.C. Section 1507. That law prohibits picketing outside the homes of judges or justices' homes in a way that could influence their decision or otherwise obstruct justice. Despite the protests, Cruz said, the Biden-led Justice Department "prosecuted nobody." "I really appreciate that you have now shifted the accusation you made earlier," Booker shot back. "Your accusation was that we were silent in the face of protests at Supreme Court justices' homes. Again, we joined together in a bipartisan way, not only to condemn that but to pass legislation to extend round-the-clock security protection. So if you're saying we didn't criticize –" he started before Cruz interjected. "Did the Biden DOJ go out and arrest a single person under this law?" the Texas lawmaker asked. Booker attempted to respond before Cruz interrupted again, "Did the Biden DOJ arrest even one [person]? Again, the answer is no." Booker attempted once more to respond before Cruz interrupted again, prompting Booker to raise his voice. "I did not interrupt you, sir, I would appreciate it if you would let me finish," he told Cruz. "I am sick and tired of hearing the kind of heated partisan rhetoric, which is one of the reasons why we have such divisions in this country," Booker continued, prompting Cruz to laugh openly in response. "The attacks we see from the president of the United States of America, trolling and dragging judges through is what we should be talking about," Booker said. "I'm simply taking issue with the claim that you made at the top, that people on the Democratic side of the aisle do not care about the safety and the security of judges and said nothing," he continued, adding that the notion that his Democrat colleagues said nothing in the face of Supreme Court justice threats "is a patent lie." The two continued arguing before Cruz said, "Let the record reflect that Spartacus did not answer the question and did not tell us whether the criminal law" under U.S.C. Section 1507 should be enforced, "because he knows the answer is yes." The hearing comes as the number of threats against federal judges has spiked during Trump's second term, which has seen hundreds of federal lawsuits filed in courts across the country seeking to either pause or halt the flurry of sweeping executive orders and actions taken by the president. Trump has repeatedly criticized what he called "activist judges," prompting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public warning. The U.S. Marshals Service said last week that it has investigated more than 370 threats against federal judges since Trump's inauguration in January, which is a sharp rise from 2024, when 509 people were investigated during the entire year. Democrats on the panel used Tuesday's hearing to renew requests for the Justice Department and FBI to investigate an uptick in anonymous "pizza deliveries" sent to federal judges, which can be used as a threat or warning to let judges know their home address is known.
The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
Santa Ono rejected for University of Florida presidency amid conservative backlash
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP) — Longtime academic Santa Ono was rejected Tuesday for the University of Florida presidency by the state university system board amid sharp criticism from political conservatives about his past support for diversity, equity and inclusion programs and other initiatives they view as unacceptable liberal ideology. The Florida Board of Governors, which oversees the state's universities, voted 10-6 against Ono, who was most recently president of the University of Michigan. The University of Florida Board of Trustees had voted unanimously in May to approve Ono as the school's 14th president, and it is unprecedented for the governors to reverse such an action. Now the search will start all over. Ono's proposed contract included a number of ideological requirements, such as how well he stopped programs that focus on diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. He was to cooperate with Gov. Ron DeSantis' Office of Government Efficiency — similar to the office created by President Donald Trump — and appoint other university officials and deans who are 'firmly aligned' with Florida's approach. Several prominent conservatives raised questions about Ono before the vote over pro-Palestinian protests, climate change efforts, gender ideology and DEI programs at the University of Michigan and his previous academic positions. These actions, Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said on the X social platform, show 'he is willing to appease and prioritize far-left activists over ensuring students are protected and receive a quality education.' Others raising objections include Donald Trump Jr. and Florida GOP U.S. Reps. Byron Donalds, Greg Steube and Jimmy Patronis. Donalds is a Republican candidate for governor. Writing in Inside Higher Ed, Ono said he supported DEI initiatives at first because they aim was 'equal opportunity and fairness for every student.' 'But over time, I saw how DEI became something else — more about ideology, division and bureaucracy, not student success,' Ono wrote, adding that he eventually limited DEI offices at Michigan. 'I believe in Florida's vision for higher education.' DeSantis, a Republican who has pushed reforms in higher education to eliminate what he calls 'woke' policies such as DEI, did not take a public stand on Ono but did say at a recent news conference that some of his statements made the governor 'cringe.' Ono faced similar pointed questions at Tuesday's meeting — especially from former Republican state House speakers Paul Renner and Jose Oliva — leading board member Charles Lydecker to object to the procedure. 'We have never used this as a forum to interrogate. This is not a court of law. Candidly, this process does not seem fair to me,' Lydecker said. Oliva, however, questioned how to square Ono's many past statements about hot-button cultural issues with his more conservative stance now that he sought the Florida job. 'Now we are told to believe you are now abandoning an entire ideological architecture,' Oliva said. 'We are asking someone to lead our flagship university. I don't understand how it becomes unfair.' Steube, writing on X, praised the board for its decision. 'Great news for my alma mater and the state of Florida! The Board of Governors heard us loud and clear: Santa Ono was the wrong choice for UF,' the congressman said. Ono was to replace Kent Fuchs, who became the school's temporary, interim president last summer after ex-U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse stepped down. Sasse left the U.S. Senate, where he had represented Nebraska, to become the university's president in 2023. Sasse announced in July he was leaving the job after his wife was diagnosed with epilepsy. Later reports surfaced that Sasse gave six former staffers and two former Republican officials jobs with salaries that outstripped comparable positions and spent over $1.3 million on private catering for lavish dinners, football tailgates and extravagant social functions in his first year on the job. Ono is also the former president of the University of British Columbia and the University of Cincinnati.
