Bipartisan support for Texas bill clarifying when doctors can perform an abortion shows early cracks
The initial and enthusiastic bipartisan support to clarify Texas' abortion laws is hitting the realities of the legislative process, as forces from each side of the debate raise concerns.
At a House committee meeting Monday, conservative lawmakers questioned the need for this clarification and whether doctors would use it as a workaround to provide 'elective abortions on demand,' as Katy Rep. Mike Schofield put it.
At the same time, Democrats and abortion access advocates pushed for an amendment to ensure the bill didn't accidentally revive the possibility of prosecuting women who have abortions, or those who assist someone in traveling out of state to terminate.
On its face, House Bill 44 and its companion, Senate Bill 31, is straightforward legislation. It does not expand abortion access but rather aims to harmonize Texas' various abortion statutes and clarify at what point doctors can perform an abortion to save a pregnant patient's life or prevent the loss of major bodily function, like future fertility. The legislation has garnered widespread support from anti-abortion groups, health care officials, medical associations and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle.
'It's simple: We do not want women to die from medical emergencies during their pregnancies,' Rep. Charlie Geren, a Fort Worth Republican, said as he introduced the bill Monday. 'We don't want women's lives to be destroyed because their bodies have been seriously impaired by medical emergencies during their pregnancies.'
The carefully negotiated bill received a warm reception from a Senate committee, but just 10 days later, House committee members took a sharper tone, showing just how complicated Texas' abortion laws are — and how difficult addressing these controversial statutes can be.
Both the House and Senate committees are expected to vote whether to move the legislation to the floor in the coming days.
A major barrier to amending Texas' abortion laws is that not everyone can agree on what Texas' abortion laws are.
The two modern laws are clear: one prohibits performing, aiding or abetting abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, and the other prohibits performing an abortion from the moment of conception, punishable by up to 99 years in prison. Both have an exception to save the life of the pregnant patient, and neither allows criminalizing the person who has the abortion.
The issue is with a much older, vaguer law. Passed in 1857, this law makes it a crime to perform or 'furnish the means' for an abortion, and does not exempt the person who has the abortion from criminal charges. This law was in effect until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in Roe v. Wade in 1973, and remained on the books, unenforceable, ever since.
When Roe was overturned in 2022, Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed these laws were back in effect, an argument conservative lawmakers and anti-abortion lawyers have made repeatedly in the three years since.
On the other side, abortion advocates and their lawyers cite several federal court rulings that say the laws are 'repealed by implication' and remain unenforceable, including a 2023 ruling that said groups that fund out-of-state abortions are likely safe from prosecution under this law. That case is ongoing.
Amending this statute as part of the clarifying law runs the risk of reviving it and risking potential criminalization of pregnant women and those who help them get abortions, several people argued at the hearing Monday.
'It would criminalize pregnant women who obtain any abortion other than one performed in a medical emergency,' Elizabeth Myers, an attorney who represents abortion funds, testified, adding that this law 'would criminalize friends and family who provide information or money for Texas women who leave the state.'
Geren, as well as the anti-abortion groups who testified, said there was no intention to use this bill to revive the pre-Roe law. Joe Pojman, with Texas Alliance for Life, said he was 'baffled' when this question came up. John Seago, with Texas Right to Life, said there was no need to use this bill to revive the old law, as his group believes it is still in effect.
Rep. Ann Johnson, a Houston Democrat who has signed onto this bill as co-author, raised the prospect of an amendment that would remove the consequences of reviving the 1925 law. Steve Bresnen, a health care lobbyist who led the effort to draft the bill, said they'd committed to adding no amendments unless the disparate groups agreed to them.
Pojman testified that his group would support an amendment that clarified the legislative intent was not to revive the 1925 laws. Seago was more cagey, saying he didn't want to weigh in while negotiations were ongoing, but said there are amendments circulating on the Senate side that would specifically exclude criminalizing the pregnant woman.
'That's a better way of going at it,' he told The Texas Tribune. 'But there's a list of amendments to be debated in the Senate that we're negotiating on, and that's why I don't want to jump out of line and commit to anything.'
Seago's group is also behind Senate Bill 2880, a wide-ranging abortion crackdown that would make it a felony to pay for someone to travel out of state for an abortion. If that passes, he said, there would be no need for the 'furnish the means' language that's in the pre-Roe statutes.
'I think people are hoping they can just get this bill and no other pro-life bills,' he said. 'That would not be sufficient to me, and we've communicated that to leadership on both sides.'
Monday's hearing revealed more details on how this bill came to be, after nearly three years of Republican leaders insisting the laws did not need to be clarified.
Steve and Amy Bresnen, two health care lobbyists and lawyers, previously petitioned the Texas Medical Board to offer more clarification to doctors. Disappointed by the response they received from that body, the duo turned to the work of crafting clarifying legislation.
The bill was closely negotiated between the medical associations and anti-abortion groups to ensure it is offering doctors more guidance without expanding abortion access, Steve Bresnen said Monday.
'This bill was tightly drafted so we didn't have every abortion battle in the world on the House floor,' he said.
But that wasn't enough to fully quell conservative backlash. Reps. Mike Olcott and Katrina Pierson repeatedly questioned how many times doctors delayed or denied medical care due to confusion over the laws, how many women had died, and whether these clarifications were necessary.
'I think everyone in this room wants to protect the life of the mother, and many of us want to protect the life of the unborn as well,' Olcott, a Fort Worth Republican, said. 'I'm just wondering where this came from.'
He said he was worried this was creating a 'checkbox' for doctors to get around the strict laws.
'When abortion was legal, the abortionists were physicians,' he said. 'So what prevents just getting around the intent of the law by just having abortion on demand and checking a box, going 'yes, the major bodily function could be an issue'?'
Doctors, lawyers, hospital administrators and anti-abortion groups testified repeatedly that abortion is fully banned and will remain so, with only this narrow exception in cases of significant medical distress.
Geren, a staunch anti-abortion Republican, and Johnson, a proudly pro-abortion Democrat, both reiterated that this was not a 'pro-choice bill' aimed at expanding abortion access.
'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. 'This is not a choice bill. This is a protect-the-mothers'-life bill.'
Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas' breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
9 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Mass. needs competitive pay for defense lawyers
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Legislators ought to listen to the committee. Ensuring that there are enough lawyers to uphold the constitutional right to representation enshrined in the Sixth Amendment should be a legislative priority. Whether in the state budget or in some other legislative vehicle, such as a supplemental budget, lawmakers should find a way to boost compensation rates across all categories of indigent defense, which span criminal, mental health, family law, and juvenile cases. Doing so would cost the state about $29 million annually. Advertisement Massachusetts' minimum bar advocate rate of $65 per hour is an outlier in New England. Maine's minimum rate is $150, New Hampshire's is $125 to $150, and Rhode Island's is $112 for most cases. Current rates in Massachusetts don't reflect the complexity of modern court cases, the overhead costs private attorneys pay out of pocket, or the state's sky-high cost of living. Advertisement The Senate's version of the budget does boost rates — but only for mental health appointments and Superior Court cases. The work stoppage is underscoring the critical work bar advocates produce. Since the stoppage began on May 27, the committee and its in-house counsel have struggled to provide attorneys for all clients that need them. Now, a slew of people accused of crimes are waiting, either in jails or out on bail — more than 150 people in Boston as of June 9, according to the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. These numbers are estimates, and bar advocate participation in the work stoppage varies between counties. But leaders agree that the number of unrepresented clients across Massachusetts is already in the hundreds and will continue to grow. Without representation, defendants are forced to stay in jail for days without arraignment, a violation of their constitutional rights. As early as next week, the Supreme Judicial Court may have to consider implementing the A shortage of bar advocates has put courts under pressure before. In 2019, Hampden County couldn't represent all of its clients, and a court instituted a day rate of $424 to incentivize additional private lawyers to handle arraignments. It was effective — and proved that low compensation really is a dissuasive factor for most private attorneys. Advertisement The legislature shouldn't wait for the crisis to deepen to provide a pay raise for bar advocates. Waiting to act will force more defendants to languish without representation, risking case mismanagement or pouring money into finding other private attorneys willing to do the work. This doesn't have to happen. The best way to solve this issue is to pay bar advocates fairly in the upcoming budget, allowing them to uphold the constitutional rights of their clients and ensuring due process across the Commonwealth. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
an hour ago
Trump's mass deportations leave Democrats more ready to fight back
WASHINGTON -- California Gov. Gavin Newsom looked straight into the camera and staked out a clear choice for his Democratic Party. The governor positioned himself as not only a leader of the opposition to President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda, but a de facto champion of the immigrants now being rounded up in California and across the country. Many of them, he said in the video address, were not hardened criminals, but hard-working people scooped up at a Home Depot lot or a garment factory, and detained by masked agents assisted by National Guard troops. It's a politically charged position for the party to take, after watching voter discontent with illegal immigration fuel Trump's return to the White House. It leaves Democrats deciding how strongly to align with that message in the face of blistering criticism from Republicans who are pouring billions of dollars into supporting Trump's strict immigration campaign. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Wednesday he's proud of Newsom, 'he's refusing to be intimidated by Donald Trump.' From the streets of Los Angeles to the halls of Congress, the debate over Trump's mass deportation agenda is forcing the U.S. to reckon with core values as a nation of immigrants, but also its long-standing practice of allowing migrants to live and work in the U.S. in a gray zone while not granting them full legal status. More than 11 million immigrants are in the U.S. without proper approval, with millions more having arrived with temporary protections. As Trump's administration promises to round up some 3,000 immigrants a day and deport 1 million a year, the political stakes are shifting in real time. The president rode to the White House with his promise of mass deportations — rally crowds echoed his campaign promise to 'build the wall.' But Americans are watching as Trump deploys the National Guard and active U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, while pockets of demonstrations erupt in other cities nationwide, including after agents raided a meat processing plant in Omaha, Nebraska Joel Payne, a Democratic strategist, said the country's mood appears to be somewhere between then-President Barack Obama's assertion that America is 'a nation of immigrants, we're also a nation of laws' and Trump's 'more aggressive' deportation approach. 'Democrats still have some work to do to be consistently trustworthy messengers on the issue,' he said. At the same time, he said, Trump's actions as a 'chaos agent' on immigration when there's already unrest over his trade wars and economic uncertainty, risk overreaching if the upheaval begins to sow havoc in the lives of Americans. Republicans have been relentless in their attacks on Democrats, portraying the situation in Los Angeles, which has been largely confined to a small area downtown, in highly charged terms as 'riots,' in a preview of campaign ads to come. Police said more than 200 people were detained for failing to disperse on Tuesday, and 17 others for violating the 8 p.m. curfew over part of Los Angeles. Police arrested several more people for possessing a firearm, assaulting a police officer and other violations. Two people have been charged for allegedly throwing Molotov cocktails toward police during LA protests. House Speaker Mike Johnson said Newsom should be 'tarred and feathered' for his leadership in the state, which he called 'a safe haven to violent criminal illegal aliens.' At a private meeting of House Republicans this week with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Rep. Richard Hudson, the chairman of the GOP's campaign arm, framed the situation as Democrats supporting rioting and chaos while Republicans stand for law and order. 'Violent insurrectionists turned areas of Los Angeles into lawless hellscapes over the weekend,' wrote Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal, suggesting it may be time to send in military troops. 'The American people elected Donald Trump and a Republican Congress to secure our border and deport violent illegal aliens. That's exactly what the president is doing.' But not all rank-and-file Republicans are on board with such a heavy-handed approach. GOP Rep, David Valadao, who represents California's agriculture regions in the Central Valley, said on social media he remains 'concerned about ongoing ICE operations throughout CA' and was urging the administration 'to prioritize the removal of known criminals over the hardworking people who have lived peacefully in the Valley for years.' Heading into the 2026 midterm election season, with control of the House and Senate at stake, it's a repeat of past political battles, as Congress has failed repeatedly to pass major immigration law changes. The politics have shifted dramatically from the Obama era, when his administration took executive action to protect young immigrants known as Dreamers under the landmark Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Those days, lawmakers were considering proposals to beef up border security as part of a broader package that would also create legal pathways, including for citizenship, for immigrants who have lived in the country for years and paid taxes, some filling roles in jobs Americans won't always take. With Trump's return to the Oval Office, the debate has turned toward aggressively removing immigrants, including millions who were allowed to legally enter the U.S. during the Biden administration, as they await their immigration hearings and proceedings. 'This anniversary should be a reminder,' said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., at a Wednesday event at the U.S. Capitol championing DACA's 13th year, even as protections are at risk under Trump's administration. 'Immigration has many faces.' Despite their challenges in last year's election, Democrats feel more emboldened to resist Trump's actions than even just a few months ago, but the political conversation has nonetheless shifted in Trump's direction. While Democrats are unified against Trump's big tax breaks bill, with its $150 billion for new detention facilities, deportation flights and 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, they talk more openly about beefing up border security and detaining the most dangerous criminal elements. Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, points to the example of Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi, who won a special election in New York last year when he addressed potential changes to the immigration system head-on. At one point, he crashed a GOP opponent's news conference with his own. 'Trump said he was going to go after the worst of the worst, but he has ignored the laws, ignored due process, ignored the courts — and the American people reject that,' she told The Associated Press. 'People want a president and a government that is going to fight for the issues that matter most to them, fight to move our country forward,' she said. 'They want a Congress that is going to be a coequal branch of government and a check on this president.'
an hour ago
Trump is expected to sign a measure blocking California's nation-leading vehicle emissions rules
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump is expected to sign a measure Thursday that blocks California's first-in-the-nation rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, a White House official told The Associated Press. The resolution Trump plans to sign, which Congress approved last month, aims to quash the country's most aggressive attempt to phase out gas-powered cars. He also plans to approve measures to overturn state policies curbing tailpipe emissions in certain vehicles and smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution from trucks. The timing of the signing was confirmed Wednesday by a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity to share plans not yet public. The development comes as the Republican president is mired in a clash with California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, over Trump's move to deploy troops to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests. It's the latest in an ongoing battle between the Trump administration and heavily Democratic California over everything from tariffs to the rights of LGBTQ+ youth and funding for electric vehicle chargers. 'If it's a day ending in Y, it's another day of Trump's war on California,' Newsom spokesperson Daniel Villaseñor said in an email. "We're fighting back." According to the White House official, Trump is expected to sign resolutions that block California's rule phasing out gas-powered cars and ending the sale of new ones by 2035. He will also kill rules that phase out the sale of medium- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles and cut tailpipe emissions from trucks. The president is scheduled to sign the measures and make remarks during an event at the White House on Thursday morning. Newsom, who is considered a likely 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, and California officials contend that what the federal government is doing is illegal and said the state plans to sue. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin are expected to attend, along with members of Congress and representatives from the energy, trucking and gas station industries. The signings come as Trump has pledged to revive American auto manufacturing and boost oil and gas drilling. The move will also come a day after the Environmental Protection Agency proposed repealing rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Zeldin said it would remove billions of dollars in costs for industry and help 'unleash' American energy. California, which has some of the nation's worst air pollution, has been able to seek waivers for decades from the EPA, allowing it to adopt stricter emissions standards than the federal government. In his first term, Trump revoked California's ability to enforce its standards, but President Joe Biden reinstated it in 2022. Trump has not yet sought to revoke it again. Republicans have long criticized those waivers and earlier this year opted to use the Congressional Review Act, a law aimed at improving congressional oversight of actions by federal agencies, to try to block the rules. That's despite a finding from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, that California's standards cannot legally be blocked using the Congressional Review Act. The Senate parliamentarian agreed with that finding. California, which makes up roughly 11% of the U.S. car market, has significant power to sway trends in the auto industry. About a dozen states signed on to adopt California's rule phasing out the sale of new gas-powered cars. The National Automobile Dealers Association supported the federal government's move to block California's ban on gas-powered cars, saying Congress should decide on such a national issue, not the state. The American Trucking Associations said the rules were not feasible and celebrated Congress' move to block them. Chris Spear, the CEO of the American Trucking Associations, said in a statement Wednesday: 'This is not the United States of California.' It was also applauded by Detroit automaker General Motors, which said it will 'help align emissions standards with today's market realities.' 'We have long advocated for one national standard that will allow us to stay competitive, continue to invest in U.S. innovation, and offer customer choice across the broadest lineup of gas-powered and electric vehicles,' the company said in a statement. Dan Becker with the Center for Biological Diversity, in anticipation of the president signing the measures, said earlier Thursday that the move would be 'Trump's latest betrayal of democracy.' 'Signing this bill is a flagrant abuse of the law to reward Big Oil and Big Auto corporations at the expense of everyday people's health and their wallets,' Becker said in a statement.
