Amid support from doctors group, bill to clarify Texas' abortion ban does little to save lives, critics say
A bipartisan bill to clarify exceptions to the state's near-total abortion ban garnered widespread support Thursday from health care professionals and abortion opponents who said the bill would remove any hesitation doctors might have to save a pregnant woman's life.
Critics, meanwhile, told lawmakers that Senate Bill 31 doesn't go far enough to protect women facing pregnancy-related medical emergencies and even quietly resurrects 160-year-old laws that could be used to criminalize those who have undergone an abortion or have helped those who receive an out-of-state abortion.
At a state Senate committee hearing Thursday, SB 31's author Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, said Texas law already creates a medical exception to the state's abortion ban, allowing doctors to intervene when the life of a pregnant patient is at risk. The proposed legislation, Hughes said, simply reiterates that exception and 'removes any question and hesitation' among doctors and hospitals about when they can provide medical care to pregnant patients.
'There's a mom and there's a baby, and we want to love and respect and protect them both,' Hughes said during the Senate Committee on State Affairs hearing. 'That's what this is really about.'
At least three women have died and dozens more have shared stories of medical care delayed or denied since Texas banned nearly all abortions after the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022. The law as currently written allows a doctor to perform an abortion to save the life of a pregnant patient, but with stiff penalties for violations — life in prison, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and the loss of their medical license — doctors have been unsure of when they can safely intervene.
SB 31, called the Life of the Mother Act, would not expand access to abortion or modify the existing near-total bans. Instead, it purports to better explain when doctors can intervene to perform a medically necessary abortion.
The bill would more clearly explain that doctors can remove an ectopic pregnancy or the remains of a fetus after a miscarriage, and aligns the definition of a medical emergency with existing state law. It also clarifies that doctors and lawyers can talk with a patient about a medically necessary abortion without running afoul of the law.
The bill also states that doctors are not required to delay, alter or withhold life-saving medical treatment to try to preserve the life of the fetus, and brings into state law previous guidance from the Texas Supreme Court, which ruled that nothing in the law required the medical emergency to be imminent or irreversible before a doctor could intervene. It also proposes continuing education requirements for lawyers and doctors to better educate them on interpreting and applying these laws.
The bill has garnered bipartisan support from Democratic lawmakers, anti-abortion groups, medical associations, doctors and other health care providers.
Medical practitioners and pro-life advocates worked together on the language of the bill, according to Lisa Kaufman, executive director and general counsel for the Texas Civil Justice League, one of the organizations that helped draft the bill. Kaufman said SB 31 would provide doctors with the confidence they need to act in a timely manner.
'There has been a breakdown of the implementation of pro-life law and we want to address that here with Senate Bill 31,' said John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life and one of a handful of individuals invited to testify for the proposed legislation.
The bill would also help recruit and retain the OB-GYN workforce, said Julie Ayala, an East Texas doctor who testified on behalf of herself and the Texas Medical Association.
One in five Texas OB-GYNs have considered leaving Texas and 13% are planning to retire early because of the state's abortion laws, according to a Manatt Health survey published in October 2024.
While the bill has the support of some doctors, some Texas mothers and University of Texas at Austin law students voiced opposition to the bill on Thursday, saying it does little to protect women and could dissuade young people from starting families in Texas.
Amanda Zurawski, who sued Texas over its abortion laws after doctors refused to end her nonviable pregnancy, questioned whether SB 31 would have allowed for a different outcome in her situation. Zurawski was 18 weeks pregnant when she experienced preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, a condition that is fatal to the fetus and poses significant risks to the pregnant patient. Zurawski went into sepsis and spent three days in the intensive care unit.
'It is unclear whether Senate Bill 31 would have prevented my trauma and preserved my fertility had it existed in 2022,' Zurawski said, pointing out that the bill does not include specific language about fetal anomalies. 'I do believe the bill comes from a place of concern, but I believe the bill is flawed and should be improved.'
Mary Rolfson Taylor, a law student at the University of Texas at Austin, told lawmakers about her experience with an ectopic pregnancy that ultimately led her to undergo an emergency surgery to remove part of her fallopian tube. SB 31 includes a requirement that physicians document the gestational age and location of the fetus to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy before providing an abortion-inducing drug, a provision that Taylor said could force doctors to delay providing life-saving care.
'I, to this day, don't know my fetus' gestational age and did not know the location of the fetus until after the surgery,' Taylor said.
SB 31 states that physicians can perform an abortion on a patient who faces 'a serious risk of substantial impairment to a major bodily function,' but does not clarify what exactly that means, said Karly Bruder, a law student at the University of Texas at Austin who also testified against the bill.
Bruder and others told lawmakers that Texas' abortion ban has led people to leave the state out of fear of what kind of care they can expect if they become pregnant.
'Doctors and health care professionals are leaving the state in droves because they are afraid,' said another University of Texas at Austin law student, Gwynn Marotta. 'There is a maternal health care crisis taking place and pregnant people will continue to die… the blood is on your hands because of these bans and because of these bills.'
Bruder was one of several at the hearing who also raised concerns that the bill would breathe new life into an unresolved legal question about the status of Texas' pre-Roe abortion laws.
Texas' current abortion laws prohibit criminalizing or otherwise going after the person who undergoes the abortion. But, the pre-Roe statutes leave the door open to criminalizing the person who terminated their pregnancy, and criminalizes anyone who 'furnishes the means' for an illegal abortion. Texas' abortion funds — nonprofit groups that help pay for out-of-state abortions — have argued in court that this clause could be used to pursue criminal charges against them.
These laws, originally written in the 1800s, were put on ice by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. They remained on the books but unenforced for almost 50 years. In 2004, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the laws were 'repealed by implication,' a ruling that a federal district judge reiterated in 2023.
But Attorney General Ken Paxton, conservative lawmakers and anti-abortion attorneys argue these pre-Roe statutes went back into effect as soon as Roe was overturned. There was a lawsuit challenging this question in court immediately after the decision, but it was never fully resolved.
SB 31's clarifying language would apply to the pre-Roe statutes, as well as the more recent bans, raising concerns from some reproductive rights advocates that it's a backdoor attempt to more fully revive these laws.
Elizabeth Sepper, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said she's skeptical that Republican lawmakers see that as a necessary step, since they believe these laws are fully in effect.
'If they didn't include language about the pre-Roe statute, then I think we would have tons of resistance from people who are concerned about reassuring doctors, because then they're still going to worry that they could face enforcement under the pre-Roe law,' she said. 'I don't see this as a meaningful step to change the status of that law.'
A companion bill, House Bill 44, has not yet been scheduled for a committee hearing. The committee also heard clashing testimony on two other bills cracking down on abortion pills, out-of-state travel and other ways Texans are evading the abortion ban.
Disclosure: Texas Civil Justice League, Texas Medical Association and University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters 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.
We can't wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas' breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more.
Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025.
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
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's No Tax On Tips Crusade Could Backfire
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Ending federal income taxes on tips, one of President Donald Trump's signature campaign pledges in the 2024 election, could potentially backfire as Americans grow weary of tipping, experts have told Newsweek. No tax on tips was something the president said he would enact "first thing" if he won the November election. The idea, launched in the service industry behemoth that is Las Vegas, quickly took hold with the electorate, so much so that his Democratic opponent Kamala Harris was quick to pledge the same relief for tipped workers should she win the White House race. Fast forward 5 months into the second Trump administration, the pledge hasn't yet been enacted, but the idea is certainly beginning to take shape. As part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Republicans have proposed a new tax deduction on tipped income up to $160,000 while keeping payroll taxes that are used to pay for Social Security and Medicare. Other legislative efforts have also been made. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, along with a bipartisan group of co-sponsors, introduced the No Tax on Tips Act to Congress in January, which would establish a new tax deduction of up to $25,000 for tips, subject to certain restrictions. "Whether it passes free-standing or as part of the bigger bill, one way or another, 'No Tax on Tips' is going to become law and give real relief to hardworking Americans," Cruz said on the Senate floor. The bill passed the chamber in May with support from both parties. Lawmakers are clearly keen on the idea, and the proposal is certainly popular with the American public, too. Polling conducted exclusively for Newsweek by Redfield & Wilton Strategies back in July 2024 showed that 67 percent of Americans do not believe tips given to service workers should be taxed. But the proposal, if enacted, could have some unintended consequences, business experts have told Newsweek. Tipping Culture Fatigue Javier Palomarez, founder and CEO of the United States Hispanic Business Council, told Newsweek the policy could "reinforce tipping in the short term but erode it over time," pointing to a growing phenomenon of tipping fatigue—a weariness among consumers increasingly asked to tip in situations where it wasn't previously expected. A BankRate survey conducted between April and May this year found that 41 percent of Americans believe tipping is "out of control" and that businesses should better compensate their employees instead of relying on gratuities to provide a wage. Thirty-eight percent reported being annoyed with pre-entered tip screens, which are usually used in automated checkouts, particularly in cafes or fast food restaurants. Still, the generosity of many Americans could pull through, at least for a short while. "By framing tips as a tax-free bonus, the policy may temporarily boost the perceived generosity and importance of tipping, encouraging consumers to view it as a more impactful way to support service workers," Palomarez said. Composite image created by Newsweek. Composite image created by Newsweek. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva But it's unlikely to be straightforward. "Cultural norms around tipping are sticky," he said. "By signaling that tipped workers deserve special tax treatment, the policy may further divide and complicate service industry compensation norms—bolstering tips in some sectors like restaurants while emphasizing reform calls in others like delivery services or app-based platforms. Over time, this could lead to service charges or higher base pay as consumers question tipping." Speaking to Newsweek, Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer's Tax and Accounting Division North America, warned that "the perception that tipped employees have a tax advantage may discourage tipping or at least the same amount of tipping by customers who are fully taxed on their incomes." Pay Boost for Workers While tipping fatigue is certainly on the rise, the pay boost for workers in the service industry is tangible. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center has estimated that middle-income households could pocket an extra $1,800 per year under the plan. Joseph Camberato, CEO at emphasized that the policy is not necessarily designed to address tipping culture—for all its pros and cons—at large. "We've all seen those 'tip' prompts at self-checkout machines for things you grabbed off a shelf yourself," Camberato told Newsweek. "This policy doesn't fix that, and honestly, it's not meant to. It's for the 1.8 million restaurant servers who rely on tips to pay their bills. For them, not getting taxed on that income is a big deal. This policy targets the right group and gives them a meaningful raise, basically overnight." He added, "If anything, it's going to help the people who deserve tips the most like servers, bartenders, hospitality workers, walk away with more money. Remember, they usually get taxed 15 to 20 percent on tips. Take that off the table, and it's like giving them a 15 to 20 percent raise. "If you're already a tipper, you're not suddenly going to stop because of this bill. But the person on the other side of the transaction is going to be walking away with more money, and that's the point."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ben Crump Says Donald Trump's Spending Bill is Terrible Amid Elon Musk Feud
Ben Crump's picked his side in the Elon Musk and Donald Trump beef ... but, he's not backing a personality, he says he's backing the better idea -- and, he doesn't want the "One Big Beautiful Bill" to pass through the Senate. We caught up with the civil rights activist and attorney and asked him about the fight between POTUS and his former advisor ... and, he doesn't directly say he's on Elon's side -- but, he does think this spending bill is terrible. Crump rips the bill for making cuts to Medicaid -- the medical assistance program for people with lower incomes. BC says the world needs more humanity for all people ... instead of making the life of individuals struggling financially more difficult. As you know ... Elon lost his cool about this spending bill earlier this week -- firing off shots at the president and claiming Trump only won reelection because of his efforts. President Trump called BS on that idea ... but, Elon pushed on and claimed the real reason the administration hasn't released the so-called Epstein files is because the president's name is all over them. He's since deleted the post where he wrote that ... but, today Trump warned of serious consequences if Elon decides to support Dems who are running against Republicans who vote for the bill. BTW ... we also asked Crump about Trump potentially pardoning Diddy -- and, it sounds like Crump's staying out of that one, too. Bottom line ... back the idea, not the man -- that's the Ben Crump way!
3 hours ago
South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- Two years after approving a tough-on-crime sentencing law, South Dakota is scrambling to deal with the price tag for that legislation: Housing thousands of additional inmates could require up to $2 billion to build new prisons in the next decade. That's a lot of money for a state with one of the lowest populations in the U.S., but a consultant said it's needed to keep pace with an anticipated 34% surge of new inmates in the next decade as a result of South Dakota's tough criminal justice laws. And while officials are grumbling about the cost, they don't seem concerned with the laws that are driving the need even as national crime rates are dropping. 'Crime has been falling everywhere in the country, with historic drops in crime in the last year or two,' said Bob Libal, senior campaign strategist at the criminal justice nonprofit The Sentencing Project. 'It's a particularly unusual time to be investing $2 billion in prisons.' Some Democratic-led states have worked to close prisons and enact changes to lower inmate populations, but that's a tough sell in Republican-majority states such as South Dakota that believe in a tough-on-crime approach, even if that leads to more inmates. For now, state lawmakers have set aside a $600 million fund to replace the overcrowded 144-year-old South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, making it one of the most expensive taxpayer-funded projects in South Dakota history. But South Dakota will likely need more prisons. Phoenix-based Arrington Watkins Architects, which the state hired as a consultant, has said South Dakota will need 3,300 additional beds in coming years, bringing the cost to $2 billion. Driving up costs is the need for facilities with different security levels to accommodate the inmate population. Concerns about South Dakota's prisons first arose four years ago, when the state was flush with COVID-19 relief funds. Lawmakers wanted to replace the penitentiary, but they couldn't agree on where to put the prison and how big it should be. A task force of state lawmakers assembled by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden is expected to decide that in a plan for prison facilities this July. Many lawmakers have questioned the proposed cost, but few have called for criminal justice changes that would make such a large prison unnecessary. 'One thing I'm trying to do as the chairman of this task force is keep us very focused on our mission,' said Lieutenant Gov. Tony Venhuizen. 'There are people who want to talk about policies in the prisons or the administration or the criminal justice system more broadly, and that would be a much larger project than the fairly narrow scope that we have.' South Dakota's incarceration rate of 370 per 100,000 people is an outlier in the Upper Midwest. Neighbors Minnesota and North Dakota have rates of under 250 per 100,000 people, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy nonprofit. Nearly half of South Dakota's projected inmate population growth can be attributed to a law approved in 2023 that requires some violent offenders to serve the full-length of their sentences before parole, according to a report by Arrington Watkins. When South Dakota inmates are paroled, about 40% are ordered to return to prison, the majority of those due to technical violations such as failing a drug test or missing a meeting with a parole officer. Those returning inmates made up nearly half of prison admissions in 2024. Sioux Falls criminal justice attorney Ryan Kolbeck blamed the high number of parolees returning in part on the lack of services in prison for people with drug addictions. 'People are being sent to the penitentiary but there's no programs there for them. There's no way it's going to help them become better people,' he said. 'Essentially we're going to put them out there and house them for a little bit, leave them on parole and expect them to do well.' South Dakota also has the second-greatest disparity of Native Americans in its prisons. While Native Americans make up one-tenth of South Dakota's population, they make up 35% of those in state prisons, according to Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit public policy group. Though legislators in the state capital, Pierre, have been talking about prison overcrowding for years, they're reluctant to dial back on tough-on-crime laws. For example, it took repeated efforts over six years before South Dakota reduced a controlled substance ingestion law to a misdemeanor from a felony for the first offense, aligning with all other states. 'It was a huge, Herculean task to get ingestion to be a misdemeanor,' Kolbeck said. Former penitentiary warden Darin Young said the state needs to upgrade its prisons, but he also thinks it should spend up to $300 million on addiction and mental illness treatment. 'Until we fix the reasons why people come to prison and address that issue, the numbers are not going to stop,' he said. Without policy changes, the new prisons are sure to fill up, criminal justice experts agreed. 'We might be good for a few years, now that we've got more capacity, but in a couple years it'll be full again,' Kolbeck said. 'Under our policies, you're going to reach capacity again soon.'
