Texas lawmakers discuss bills to clarify, toughen abortion laws
The Brief
Texas lawmakers discussed three bills to address abortion laws in the state
One bill noted that certain abortions are allowed in Texas to address serious emergencies
None of the bills provide exemptions for rape and incest
AUSTIN, Texas - Texas has one of the toughest abortion laws in the country. It's essentially a total ban that abortion advocates claim puts lives at risk.
On Thursday, the Senate State Affairs committee took up three bills to address confusion about what's on the books.
None of the bills provide exemptions for rape and incest.
The backstory
"The intent of this bill is to remove any excuse from a doctor or a hospital treating a mom, for example, with an ectopic pregnancy," said State Senator Bryan Hughes (R) Mineola.
SB 31 known as the "Life of the Mother Act" codifies a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling. In upholding the law, the court noted that certain abortions are allowed in Texas to address serious emergencies.
Supporters of the bill described it as a compromise.
"The unification of the definition should give mothers in Texas the security that their health and life will be respected and protected. Pro-Life advocates can also be assured that this bill in no way allows for additional exceptions or expansions of legal abortion in Texas," said Jennifer Allman with the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops.
The backstory
The committee also considered legislation that toughens existing law.
SB 33 would prevent cities and counties in Texas from allocating public money to help women travel out of the state to get an abortion. The city of Austin has already earmarked $400,000 for what's called a reproductive justice fund.
During the hearing, a similar effort in San Antonio was called a wasteful diversion of taxpayer money.
"22% of our streets are in poor or failing condition. We are more than 200 police officers short. We have so many things that we need to spend our taxpayers' money on that. I hear about every single day in the community meetings that I go to, and not once in any of those community meetings have I ever heard the residents of San Antonio telling me that they want their tax dollars to be spent sending women to other states to receive abortion-related services," said Marc Whyte, who is a member of the San Antonio city council.
The backstory
The committee also considered a broad enforcement bill that could trigger out-of-state court fights.
SB 2880 targets providers of abortion-inducing medications that are prescribed and sent in the mail. The bill classifies paying for/ or reimbursing costs for an abortion as a felony.
The bill would authorize the attorney general to prosecute abortion crimes, and it would allow wrongful death and injury lawsuits six years after an abortion takes place.
The other side
Several abortion advocates voiced opposition to all the bills, arguing that they are unconstitutional.
"I oppose this bill because I am scared. I am scared because myself and those that I love, live here already. Many of my loved ones have left as those who are hoping to start families are afraid to be pregnant in Texas, as they are not sure what kind of care they will receive. Should the worst situations happen," said UT Law student Karly Bruder.
Dig deeper
The committee also took up several other issues.
Hearings were held on legislation to reign in the veto power and emergency powers of the governor.
They also discussed a bill that would address the sale of new types of synthetic drugs that are currently unregulated.
The Source
Information from a Texas legislative session hearing
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senate GOP unveil long-awaited SNAP proposals for Trump bill
Senate Republicans on Wednesday rolled out a suite of proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as a key component of President Trump's 'big beautiful bill' – but it dials back some of the proposals sought by the House that drew intraparty concerns. The new legislative text from the Senate would require states to cover some of the cost of SNAP benefits, which are currently completely funded by the federal government, if they have a payment error rate above 6 percent beginning in fiscal 2028, while allowing states with rates below that level to continue paying zero percent. It also proposes states with higher payment error rates cover a greater share of benefit costs. If the error rate is 6 percent or higher, states would be subject to a sliding scale that could see its share of allotments rise to a range of between 5 percent to 15 percent. The House, by contrast, called for all states to cover 5 percent of the cost of allotments in its agricultural proposal passed as part of a broader plan to advance Trump's tax agenda last month, with states that had higher payment error rates having to pay anywhere between 15 to 25 percent. The softened proposal comes as Senate Republicans expressed concerns about how the House pitch would have impacted states. 'This bill takes a commonsense approach to reforming SNAP-cutting waste, increasing state accountability, and helping recipients transition to self-sufficiency through work and training,' Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman (R-Ariz.) said in a statement on Wednesday. 'It's about being good stewards of taxpayer dollars while giving folks the tools to succeed.' 'At the same time, our farmers and ranchers are facing real challenges,' he said. 'This legislation delivers the risk management tools and updated farm bill safety net they need to keep producing the safest, most abundant and affordable food, fuel, and fiber in the world. It's an investment in rural America and the future of agriculture.' Like the House bill, the Senate bill would also decrease the administrative cost the federal government is required to pay to help cover program operations in the states by 25 percent, but beginning in fiscal year 2027. The proposals in both chambers also seek to limit the federal government's ability to increase monthly benefits in the future and beef up work requirements, as well as farm provisions that GOP leaders have argued will make it easier to craft a bipartisan farm bill in the months ahead – although Democrats have said otherwise. Republicans on the Senate Agriculture Committee estimated the recent legislation would generate $144 billion in net savings in the years ahead as the party looks to ramp up cost-cutting measures in Trump's plan amid concerns about the overall deficit impact of his tax priorities. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Food Bank of Iowa warns about SNAP implications in President Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
DES MOINES, Iowa — The Food Bank of Iowa is sounding the alarm while the fate of the President's 'big, beautiful bill' sits in the United States Senate. The concerns outlined by the organization are food insecurity and limited resources that food banks already have. 'We're gravely concerned about the one big, beautiful bill act as written,' said Annette Hacker, Vice President of Strategy and Communications for the Food Bank of Iowa. 'It stands to slash $267 billion with a 'b' from SNAP over ten years. And it takes 9.5 billion meals a year off of the table for people facing hunger.' New law helps clear the way for birthing centers in Iowa The bill has states pay for these federal benefits, in part, through a cost sharing method. Hacker said that this would be roughly $40 million a year the state would have to account for, which to her doesn't feel possible. The legislation also raises the age of SNAP work requirements to 65-years-old, extending those requirements to parents without children younger than 7-years-old. 'The crushing need this would create is not possible for the charitable food system, that's us, to absorb. If you look at every Feeding America food bank in this country, of which Food Bank of Iowa is one of 200 and all the partners and pantries we stock across the entire country, that's 6 billion meals a year distributed. This would be 9.5 billion more meals, a gap that would have to be filled. And the math just doesn't work,' said Hacker. U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley said that the goal is for the chamber to take it up on the Senate floor in the last week of June. To volunteer or donate, visit the Food Bank of Iowa's website. Iowa News: Food Bank of Iowa warns about SNAP implications in President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' Winner named in Coolest Thing Made in Iowa contest New law helps clear the way for birthing centers in Iowa Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline Third case of measles in Iowa this year reported by HHS Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Extending the Trump Tax Cuts Is a Good Idea. But It Won't Deliver 'Big, Beautiful' Economic Growth.
President Donald Trump and many of his allies in Congress are making grand claims about the economic growth they say will result from the recently proposed "One Big Beautiful Bill." Trump has accused critics of not understanding the budget proposal, "especially the tremendous GROWTH that is coming." A closer examination of the economic realities involved reveals that these claims are dramatically overstated. I have no objections on principles to extending the expiring provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Allowing these cuts to expire would deliver some measure of pain to the economy and add to our troubles. Tax hikes at a time when individuals and businesses are expecting tax stability would undoubtedly depress investment, employment, and overall economic confidence. Americans are already getting a huge tax hike because of Trump's tariffs. However, making a sound case for maintaining the current tax structure is fundamentally different from making the case that it will bring about substantial new growth. It's largely a defensive move. Realistically, the economic boost will be modest at best. In fact, the administration and congressional supporters of this bill admit that much without realizing it. On the Senate side, lawmakers argue that the fiscal cost of extending the 2017 tax cuts should be measured against today's tax code rather than against the code to which we would revert if the cuts automatically expire. They argue that assuming the cuts will be extended reflects the common expectation among taxpayers and markets. But if markets already expect extensions, then making the tax cuts permanent cannot generate significant additional economic growth. The growth that can be achieved by these tax cuts has largely been realized. Merely continuing with lower rates doesn't unleash many new incentives or productivity. In addition, the budget legislation does lots more than extend the 2017 tax cuts. In fact, about 25 percent of the bill consists of different tax breaks on tips or overtime, and spending hikes for the military and various special interests. These are not pro-growth policies—in addition to being expensive. The Tax Foundation estimates that the bill would raise economic output by approximately 0.8 percent in the long run. The Economic Policy Innovation Center analysis pegs the economic gain at around 0.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Both are far from the revolutionary 3 percent figures that Trump's most ardent fanboys are claiming. Moreover, most economic models don't adequately consider the negative consequences of ballooning federal debt on long-term growth. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will add a further $2.4 trillion to the debt. High levels of debt put upward pressure on interest rates, crowding out private investment and dampening long-term growth prospects. Historically, too much debt correlates with diminished economic performance. Whatever blip in the growth rate we will see thanks to the tax bill, it won't compensate for the damage done by the Trump administration's ongoing trade wars. Tariffs disrupt supplies, increase costs for American businesses and consumers, and create considerable economic uncertainty. Even if we generously assume that tax cuts will deliver an additional 0.5 percent to 0.8 percent in annual GDP growth, the drag from tariffs easily surpasses this modest benefit. The contradiction couldn't be clearer. Proponents of the bill and the president himself trumpet its growth-enhancing powers while simultaneously piling up debt and enacting trade policies that are both guaranteed to undermine economic dynamism. And yes, in addition to the expected opposition from Democrats, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and a few other voices from the right side of the aisle have been highlighting the bill's inadequacies, to the great displeasure of the president. Among other things, they point to its subsidies and other distorting economic interventions and accurately observe that the economic benefits being touted are inflated and misleading. Paul understands that a true pro-growth agenda would extend the tax provisions while limiting the debt impact by cutting wasteful spending, closing tax loopholes, and not loading the bill with lots of special-interest giveaways. The legislation is now in the hands of the Senate. If senators are interested in genuine and productive tax reform, they will scrap the new provisions and do 10-year extensions of pro-growth policies that are currently temporary in the legislation as passed by the House (such as 100 percent bonus depreciation and research-and-development expensing)—and they'd still be left with room to lower the cost. If they keep the spending offset included in the House bill and Medicaid reform, this would become both pro-growth and fiscally responsible legislation. Instead of indulging in the dangerous fantasy that any tax cuts will produce enormous growth, Congress needs to do the work and revise the bill so that it does produce growth and offsets the debt accumulation. COPYRIGHT 2025 The post Extending the Trump Tax Cuts Is a Good Idea. But It Won't Deliver 'Big, Beautiful' Economic Growth. appeared first on
