Conservative lawmakers express concerns about bipartisan bill clarifying medical exceptions to Texas abortion law
Some conservative lawmakers at the Texas Capitol raised doubts about a
new bill that won bipartisan support
because it would clarify the medical exceptions to the state's near abortion ban; however, groups opposing and supporting abortion rights, Democrats and Republicans, worked on the language of the bill and said that's not the case.
As Republican State Representative Charlie Geren of Fort Worth outlined House Bill 44 to the House Public Health Committee this week, he emphasized his record of opposing abortion.
"I am not pro-choice," said Geren. "I have voted for every anti-abortion bill that's been in front of the House since I've been here for 24 years. This is not a choice bill. This is a protect the mother's life bill."
The legislation comes after
women filed suit against Texas
claiming the near abortion ban left their doctors confused about the medical exceptions and delayed their care when confronted with complications to their pregnancies.
The bill would not only allow an abortion to save the life of the mother, but also if the woman's major bodily function would be at risk. State Representative Mike Schofield, R-Katy, expressed concern during the hearing.
"I think a lot of the pro-life community are worried that when you start making exceptions, they'll become checkboxes to get around and get right back to elective abortion on demand," said Schofield. "What's in the bill that protects against that?"
Heather De La Garza Barone with the Texas Hospital Association said, "First and foremost, 170A prohibits abortions in Texas except in two cases: risk of death, risk of major impairment of bodily function. That is it."
"We don't change the law with respect to reporting anytime there is a termination within the hospital setting," Lisa Kaufman with the Texas Civil Justice League said. "They're still going to have to report it. They're still going to have to document it."
Another conservative lawmaker, Representative Katrina Pierson, R-Rockwall asked, "If the liability itself is removed and you're allowed to make the decision that you believe is the right decision to make at that point in time, why do we have to change the language of life-threatening because that's no longer an issue if penalties are removed?"
"You can have a risk of major bodily function that is not life-threatening," said Kaufman. "The Medical Board and the Supreme Court have said that includes future fertility. So future fertility, though very sad, wouldn't necessarily be life-threatening."
One Democratic lawmaker, Representative Lauren Ashley Simmons of Houston, said she resented some of the questions by conservatives.
"I have a hard time sitting here and y'all being drilled this way," said Simmons. "It frustrates me because I remember having to make hard choices. I've had two very difficult pregnancies and I remember being on the way to the hospital and my husband and I had to have a conversation if I have to make the call, what do we do."
While the bill clarifies the medical exceptions, doctors who perform abortions that should not have still face criminal charges, the loss of their medical licenses, fines, and civil lawsuits. After all the testimony, the bill was left pending in committee. The same bill in the Senate has also remained pending in committee.
Watch
Eye On Politics at 7:30 Sunday morning
on CBS News Texas air and streaming
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
32 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
DOGE gets failing grade
1: The DOGE numbers don't add up. Calculating how much DOGE has saved is difficult, but it's not at all hard to see that it didn't deliver what was promised. After Musk revised down his own early projection of DOGE savings from $2 trillion to $1 trillion, the department's website now estimates it has found more than $170 billion in taxpayer savings — Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But even that figure should be taken with a grain of salt, given that past examinations of DOGE's ' Advertisement DOGE moved to correct the error, as well as change the website to make such errors harder to find. But a Advertisement And though it may seem counterintuitive, cutting jobs doesn't actually translate to savings if it results in less productivity — if fewer IRS workers means less tax revenue is collected, for instance. An And even some Republican lawmakers have expressed unease with backing many DOGE-recommended cuts in a $9.4 billion legislative 'rescissions' package to claw back previously approved funding. House lawmakers 2: DOGE has roiled the job market. According to the latest jobs numbers, DOGE cuts contributed to a 50 percent spike in layoffs in May over the same period last year, Exacerbating the damage the firings alone have created is the chaotic way in which they were implemented. Federal agencies like the State Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Food and Drug Administration, National Weather Service, and the IRS are among those rushing to rehire terminated employees. That's because many of the estimated 135,000 DOGE-axed positions are for critical functions, like approving drugs and forecasting weather disasters. The layoffs' often-disorganized manner has confused dismissed workers and overtaxed remaining ones, many of whom have been asked to work overtime, volunteer to take on additional roles, or be pushed into new positions, Advertisement One former FDA worker That's not to mention the blow to communities in states where the largest percentages of federal workers are located, as well as government contractors that face secondhand profit and job losses due to the cuts. Outside of the greater Washington, D.C. region, which includes Virginia and Maryland, the hardest-hit states when it comes to canceled government contracts based on anti-DEI initiatives alone include Texas, California, North Carolina, Georgia, and Colorado — affecting politically red communities as well as blue. DOGE's harms know no partisanship. 3: The incalculable costs. On Monday a 'This was a breach of law and of trust,' wrote Judge Denise Cote in issuing the temporary injunction. 'Tens of millions of Americans depend on the Government to safeguard records that reveal their most private and sensitive affairs.' Whether some or all of DOGE's efforts to gain access to Americans' most sensitive information through agency databases will be declared unlawful is still uncertain. Challenges are still being litigated, and in a lawsuit involving DOGE access to Social Security data, the Advertisement According to Some DOGE staff have been granted temporary 'edit-access' to data, which means the information can be altered or deleted entirely within the federal system. That says nothing of the broader global impact, particularly through the dismantling of agencies like the United States Agency for International Development, which once provided critical life-saving humanitarian aid across the world. DOGE has The government claims that shuttering the agency saved Americans nearly $60 billion, or less than 1 percent of the federal budget. According to Advertisement Musk is already back to playing with his cars and rocket ships as the federal government picks up the pieces from his DOGE tantrum. But the global ripple effect is a reminder that some of the damage can't be undone. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
an hour ago
Manhunt continues for Minnesota shooting suspect Vance Boelter
Around 24 hours after police say a gunman killed a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband, plus wounded another lawmaker and his wife, suspect Vance Boelter remains on the run, authorities have said. The shootings began around 2 a.m. Saturday, when Minnesota State Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, were both shot multiple times at their home in Champlin, Minnesota, authorities said. Soon after, State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, were shot and killed at their home in Brooklyn Park. Police encountered the gunman leaving Hortman's house at around 3:35 a.m., the officers heading there to check on the lawmaker after responding to the earlier shooting at Hoffman's home. The suspect exchanged gunfire with police and was able to escape and flee on foot, authorities said. The FBI is "using every available resource to locate Vance Boelter," FBI Minneapolis Special Agent in Charge Alvin M. Winston Sr. said in a statement. The FBI is offering a $50,000 reward for information leading to Boelter's arrest. The 57-year-old suspect is alleged to have gained access to the victim's homes while posing as a police officer. Police believe that when the shooter opened fire, he was wearing a latex mask that looked realistic, sources said. Boelter -- a husband and father, according to an online biography -- has touted an extensive background in security and military training, according to an ABC News review of his online presence and professional history. Boelter helped lead the private security firm Praetorian Guard Security Services, which is based in the Twin Cities area, according to the company website. Dozens of Minnesota Democrats were on a target list written by the gunman, according to law enforcement sources. Those on the list included Gov. Tim Walz, U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, U.S. Sen. Tina Smith and state Attorney General Keith Ellison, according to law enforcement sources familiar with the matter. Police said the list -- which was retrieved from the suspect's vehicle, which looked like a police vehicle and had police lights -- also named Hortman and Hoffman. Both victims are Democrats and Hortman was formerly the Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives. The shooter's list of potential targets also included the names of abortion providers and pro-choice activists, several sources told ABC News. Many of the Democratic lawmakers on the list have been outspoken about pro-choice policy positions, two sources said.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Gavin Newsom stands up to President Trump
Neither Newsom, nor Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, nor Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell was consulted by the White House about federalizing the Guard, who arrived after protesters gathered in opposition to Immigration and Customs Enforcement's workplace raids in and around the city. Advertisement Newsom spent days jousting with Trump. When the president said it would be 'great' if border czar Tom Homan had Newsom Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up 'If some of us can be snatched off the streets without a warrant, based only on suspicion or skin color, then none of us are safe,' Newsom said. 'Authoritarian regimes begin by targeting people who are least able to defend themselves. But they do not stop there.' Advertisement Neither did Newsom. 'I ask everyone: Take time, reflect on this perilous moment,' he said. 'A president who wants to be bound by no law or constitution, perpetuating a unified assault on American traditions.' Newsom ticked off the harms Trump has inflicted in his second term, from threatening to defund media organizations to waging 'a war on culture, on history, on science, on knowledge itself.' 'The rule of law,' After encouraging Americans 'to stand up and be held to account,' Newsom said, " I know many of you are feeling deep anxiety, stress, and fear. But I want you to know that you are the antidote to that fear and that anxiety. What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty, your silence, to be complicit in this moment. Do not give in to him.' Like Trump, Newsom understands optics and how to seize a moment. But this time, the personal and political stakes are much greater. Newsom is now the face and voice of the Democrats' anti-Trump fury. In addition to Rob Bonta, the California attorney general When Advertisement On Thursday's edition of The New York Times podcast ' He also defended his conversations with far-right extremists, saying that Democrats can learn from how they mobilized Trump's support. (Incessant lies, racism, and anti-trans hate aren't, though, a path his party can take to consolidate its base and reclaim power.) But Newsom, who never met a camera or microphone he didn't like, clearly wants to be the Democrats' point man in challenging Trump. Much the way the president's 'I'm going to continue to push back, and I'm going to stay on the offense, Newsom said on 'The Daily.' For a time, the governor's voice was no longer one that some Democrats wanted. But so long as Trump's venomous policies continue to roil this nation, Newsom's, for now, has become the voice America needs to hear. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
