Latest news with #SB31
Axios
6 days ago
- Health
- Axios
Bill targeting abortion pills misses key deadline
An effort to limit abortion pills in Texas appears to have died in the Legislature. Why it matters: Abortion is already illegal in Texas, but Republicans this session turned their attention to medication abortion, which accounts for most abortions performed in the U.S. Driving the news: Senate Bill 2880 — a sweeping measure that allows lawsuits against those mailing, delivering, manufacturing or distributing abortion bills — sailed through the Senate last month, but did not receive a vote in the House before a key deadline. Senate bills must have received a vote in the House by Tuesday to move to Gov. Greg Abbott's desk. The legislative session ends Monday. Yes, but: It's not over 'til it's over. Measures can be resurrected at the last minute through amendments. What they're saying:"This is a significant failure from the House," Texas Right to Life president John Seago told the Texas Tribune. "When you look at the opportunity this bill had, it seems like there was a deliberate effort to slow the bill down, if not to kill it." Zoom in: More than three dozen Republicans signed a letter last week urging the House State Affairs Committee to vote on the bill so that it could move to the full chamber. The committee approved the measure, but too late in the legislative process to make it to the House floor before the clock ran out. The big picture: The Legislature has moved along several other abortion-related bills. SB 31, aimed at clarifying Texas' abortion ban, which includes an exception that allows doctors to terminate a pregnancy to save the pregnant person's life, is awaiting a signature by Abbott. SB 33, which bans a city from using taxpayer money to pay for abortion-related expenses, also awaits the governor's signature. Both Austin and San Antonio have allocated money to support people traveling for abortions out of state. The other side: "SB 31 doesn't undo the harm of the state's abortion ban, and it never could. No amount of 'clarification' can fix a fundamentally unjust law," Blair Wallace, policy and advocacy strategist for reproductive rights at the ACLU of Texas, said in a statement on the passage of SB 31.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Texas House overwhelmingly passes bill to clarify medical exception to state abortion ban
After months of behind-the-scenes negotiations and years of criticism over unclear medical exceptions, the Texas House on Wednesday overwhelmingly voted to pass a bill clarifying the state's near-total abortion bans. Senate Bill 31 standardizes the medical exception in the state's three separate abortion bans, including one from 1857, and requires doctors to receive training on what is permissible under the law. It also clarifies that doctors may treat a life-threatening condition before a patient faces imminent death or harm, codifying the Texas Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in a lawsuit brought by 20 Texas women and two OB-GYNs. The proposal does not expand or change which Texans qualify for a legal abortion. Current law bans the procedure from fertilization, with no exceptions for rape, incest or fetal anomalies. Addressing his colleagues, Republican state Rep. Charlie Geren said SB 31 will ensure doctors know when they can intervene in near-death situations. "We know women have died after care was delayed or denied,' said Geren, who authored SB 31's House companion. "We know women have left Texas for lifesaving care. We know women have been horribly injured because doctors have refused to provide abortions that could save their bodies. Doctors and hospitals need the clarity that SB 31 can provide." Since September 2021, when the Legislature passed Senate Bill 8, at least three women have died after doctors denied abortion care during medical crises and the rate of sepsis nearly doubled among pregnant Texans, according to ProPublica. Around three abortions per month have taken place under the life-of-the-mother exception, or 135 in total, according to data from the state Health and Human Services Commission. Doctors also testified in regulatory hearings that they were afraid they would face lawsuits or criminal prosecution for intervening to save a woman's life. The preliminary 129-6 House vote moves SB 31 one crucial step forward to reaching the governor's desk after it passed unanimously in the state Senate. Ten House members abstained. The bill will go to a final vote Thursday and would take effect immediately once signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. Several of the chamber's hardline Republicans questioned Geren about whether the bill would allow doctors to terminate pregnancies unnecessarily, with Rep. Briscoe Cain, R-Deer Park, asking whether more babies would die as a result of the bill. Rep. Tom Oliverson, an anesthesiologist and conservative Republican from Cypress, responded to those concerns by saying that when a previable pregnancy threatens a mother's life, the baby will die regardless. "The question is whether the mother survives the pregnancy," Oliverson said on the House floor. "We're not talking about circumstances where the baby could be delivered and could survive." SB 31's initial language drew significant pushback from abortion rights activists, who said it could bolster the state's argument that an abortion ban originating in 1857 is enforceable. In response, the bill's author, Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes of Mineola, changed the proposal to clarify it neither rejects nor affirms the enforceability of the pre-Roe law. The bill now also states that pregnant Texans cannot be prosecuted for receiving an abortion. SB 31 will tweak Hughes' Senate Bill 8, the 2021 law that authorizes private citizens to sue people who terminate a pregnancy after around six weeks. It also changes some language in House Bill 1280, a 2021 law that set out criminal penalties of up to 99 years in prison, loss of a medical license and significant fines for physicians found to have illegally terminated a pregnancy. According to Geren, SB 31 will address a mismatch between the intent and the effect of those abortion bans. "This bill clarifies the legislative intent that everyone thought we had when we passed the law several years ago," he said. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Bill to 'clarify' Texas abortion ban set to reach Gov. Greg Abbott
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Clarity on abortion exceptions, more enforcement on abortion pills pass Texas Senate
AUSTIN (Nexstar) — The Texas Senate passed multiple pieces of legislation this week that would give reproductive care providers more clarity for when a doctor can legally perform an abortion to save a mother's life, and also legislation that would allow Texas residents to sue abortion pill manufacturers and anyone who delivers to product to the state. State Sen. Bryan Hughes, R – Mineola, authored Senate Bill 31. It passed the Texas Senate with unanimous support. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said after the passage the bill, 'clarifies current law to provide guidance to physicians when they treat a pregnant woman who is at risk of death or substantial impairment of a major bodily function by clearly defining 'life-threating.' The bill defines the medical emergencies where doctors can intervene to save the mother's life. It also provides exceptions for pregnant women going through cancer treatment. Although gaining support from Senate Democrats, State Sen. Molly Cook, D – Houston, said the bill helps a lot, but more needs to be done for reproductive health in the state. 'There's still no exceptions for instances of rape, or incest, or fetal anomalies, and it of course does nothing for people who just want to be in charge and have the choice,' Cook said. Moments after passing SB 31, senators debated another bill from Hughes, SB 2880. It expands enforcement on abortion-inducing medications by allowing Texans to sue anyone who mails or delivers abortion pills to Texas, including the companies that manufacture the product, for $100,000. 'Women are being harmed. Women are being hurt by these pills,' Hughes said when laying out his bill on the Senate floor. He referenced a recent study conducted by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a faith-based policy institute. The study analyzed, 'health insurance claims database that includes 865,727 prescribed mifepristone abortions from 2017 to 2023.' Of those abortions, the study found 10.93% of the women experienced a 'life-threatening adverse event.' But, other studies have shown success from the pills. One study found in a one- year period, of the 2,268 women who used the drug, 98.4% were satisfied with the experience. Texas has already tried to enforce civil penalties on a New York-based doctor. Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the doctor, saying she mailed abortion-inducing medications to a Texas woman that resulted in the death of an unborn child and serious complications for the mother. A Texas judge issued a $100,000 penalty, but the doctor may not have to pay that fine. Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California Davis, said the main question about this case is whether or not Texas courts can force judgements in New York courts. Ziegler said the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution states, 'When one state's courts reach a final decision the other state's courts have to respect it, but that's not true in every single circumstance.' New York, and other states, passed 'shield laws' to protect their residents from either civil or criminal consequences based on offering abortion and other reproductive healthcare. Texas will have to go to federal court to get an answer, Ziegler said. 'There's definitely a feeling I think when it comes to abortion pills in Texas of people in the pro-life or anti-abortion movement trying a whole bunch of strategies to see what works because to date, nothing has. To date, even though Texas obviously has some of the strongest abortion bans in the nation, there hasn't been much success in shutting down access to abortion pills,' Ziegler explained. She said the Supreme Court is more 'anxious' forcing one state to honor another state's judgements when it involves something that either is a criminal penalty or civil law equivalent. As an example, she said if the state of California sued a Texas resident for owning a handgun because it's against their laws, the Supreme Court would most likely not force Texas courts to comply with that judgement. But, she did explain the Supreme Court has said it is different if a private citizen is suing another private citizen, and could be a more successful path at enforcing this anti-abortion pill bill. However, New York does have 'clawback' laws that would allow a private citizen to countersue for interfering with their rights, creating an even more tricky legal issue. 'Whatever happens it's going to be a mess,' Ziegler said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Senate panel OKs revised version of abortion ban clarification bill. Here's what changed.
A high-profile proposal to prevent maternal deaths under Texas' near-total abortion ban is advancing to the Senate floor with substantial revisions after abortion rights groups warned the bill might revive a pre-Roe abortion ban and hardline Republicans expressed concerns about abortions for non-life-threatening conditions. The revised version of Senate Bill 31, which the Senate State Affairs Committee unanimously advanced Tuesday, states that pregnant Texans who obtain abortions cannot be personally targeted under any of the state's abortion bans, including one dating back to 1857. It now states the legislation should not be construed to revive or to reject the pre-Roe abortion statutes. The bill's author, Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes of Mineola, also reintroduced language stating that a pregnant person must face a 'life-threatening condition' to qualify for a legal abortion. The changes address questions from lawmakers, citizen groups and other stakeholders on "the left and the right," Hughes told the American-Statesman after the vote. "The changes in this substitute are consistent with the purpose of the bill, which is removing any question or doubt about the medical emergency language," Hughes said. SB 31 standardizes the medical exception in the state's three separate abortion bans and requires doctors to receive training on what is permissible under the law. It also clarifies that doctors may treat a life-threatening condition before a patient faces imminent death or harm, codifying the Texas Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in Zurawski v. Texas. Several plaintiffs in the 2023 Zurawski lawsuit, which was brought by 20 Texas women who experienced serious pregnancy complications, celebrated the changes in a news conference Tuesday afternoon. In the lawsuit, they had argued that overly vague abortion laws caused physicians to delay or deny necessary medical care. "The updated language ... is the first time I've heard that my health rights would have been protected," said Jess Bernardo, who said she risked heart failure, renal failure and seizures during her pregnancy but could not find treatment in Texas. Her baby had anasarca (severe swelling in different parts of the body) and would not survive birth, her doctors said. "This makes me very hopeful that I can safely have children in the future." After the bill was introduced, abortion travel funds and other abortion rights advocates warned the original SB 31 as written could be used to revive a pre-Roe abortion ban that prohibits 'furnishing the means' to terminate a pregnancy. The pre-Roe ban, which is sometimes called the '1925 law' though it was first codified in 1857, does not explicitly exempt people who receive abortion care from criminal prosecution. Groups that fund out-of-state abortions, like Jane's Due Process and Fund Texas Choice, argued the original bill could have opened a pathway for the state to go after abortion travel funds, people who pay for out-of-state abortions and patients. State Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, is carrying its companion, House Bill 44. Both lawmakers oppose abortion rights. State Rep. Ann Johnson, D-Houston, said the added provisions show that 'no one is trying to prosecute women and no one is trying to revive the 1925 law' with the new proposal. 'I'm grateful that the bill authors were willing to work to address the public's concerns,' Johnson, who coauthored the House version of the bill, told the American-Statesman. 'This bill is going to give a ton of relief to the families that I have heard from and the women that I have heard from.' After abortion travel funds sued to block enforcement of the pre-Roe ban in 2022, arguing it is no longer live, a federal district court temporarily put it on ice. However, the lawsuit is still ongoing, and appeals court judges could find the statute is still enforceable. The revised SB 31 states that 'We're not taking a position one way or another about the 1857 law or the lawsuit,' said Lisa Kaufman, a lobbyist for the Texas Civil Justice League who helped draft the bill. 'We are simply making conforming change so that if it is good law, we have the conforming change made, and if it isn't, it isn't.' SB 31's GOP sponsors and major anti-abortion groups, such as Texas Alliance for Life and Texas Right to Life, supported the introduced versions of the bill, which said patients must face risk of death or 'substantial loss of a major bodily function' but did not require that a 'life-threatening condition' cause these risks, unlike current law. However, some undefined in the Texas House objected. "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," state Rep. Mike Schofield, R-Katy, said during a House Public Health Committee hearing on HB 44 on April 7. The OB-GYNs that Kaufman consulted didn't feel the requirement that there be a 'life-threatening condition' would hurt physicians' ability to treat women during emergencies, she said. 'Physicians felt that in a state where we don't have elective abortion, they're not going to suggest to a mom that she had terminate her pregnancy unless it is a life-threatening condition, unless there's a very serious condition,' Kaufman told the Statesman. Examples include cancer diagnoses, preeclampsia and premature water breaks, all of which can be deadly for a pregnant woman, she said. The changes to the bill address some lawmakers' concerns while maintaining its core function, said Amy Bresnen, a lobbyist who helped draft the legislation. 'It's remarkable that we have actually come to an agreement and everyone feels like it's an improvement,' Bresnen said. The House Public Health Committee is expected to swap HB 44 for the revised Senate version once it reaches the lower chamber. "We still have a long way to go, but this is a step in a right direction," said Amanda Zurawski, the lead plaintiff in Zurawski v. Texas, during Tuesday's news conference. Also on Tuesday, the Senate State Affairs Committee advanced a substitute of legislation that seeks to crack down on providers of abortion pills as they continue to flow into Texas. SB 2880 — considered to be the most wide-ranging abortion bans in the country — would allow private citizens to sue organizations that mail drugs like mifepristone and misoprostol to patients in Texas, including websites and payment platforms like PayPal and Venmo that are based outside of the state. It would also authorize Attorney General Ken Paxton to prosecute Texans accused of performing illegal abortions if their district attorneys do not. Hughes, who also authored SB 2880, removed a provision that would have allowed the state to prosecute people and groups that fund out-of-state abortions, he said. "SB 2880 is is laser focused on the manufacturers and distributors of those abortion pills," Hughes told the Statesman Tuesday. "If they're sending those into Texas for that purpose, they're going to be held civilly liable." The Texas House State Affairs Committee is set to hear HB 5510, the lower chamber's version of SB 2880, on Friday. Hughes is carrying the Senate proposal, while state Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, authored the House version. Abortion rights advocates are mobilizing against the proposal, they said Tuesday. "Everything that we were trying to make sure didn't happen with the 1925 law revival will happen with this bill," Kash said. More: Texans share emotional testimony on bills to further restrict abortion pills, travel This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas lawmakers tweak abortion bill after Dems, GOP raise concerns
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Texas tort reform proposal could curb pricey verdicts in personal injury cases. Here's why
Texas Republican lawmakers are pushing to overhaul how juries award damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases, generating a flurry of spending on advertisements for and against the proposal by business and legal groups. Senate Bill 30, by Sen. Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown, aims to restrain a 'rise in substantial verdicts' by limiting the medical costs that plaintiffs can claim to 300% of Medicare reimbursement rates and raising the standard of evidence for noneconomic damages for mental anguish and physical pain and suffering. The tort reform bill would address 'a fundamental unfairness in civil trials over torts' and 'an unstable legal environment that is driving up costs for Texas families and businesses,' Schwertner, an orthopedic surgeon, told his colleagues on the Senate floor. The Senate passed the measure by a 20-11 party-line vote Wednesday evening, advancing the bill to the House. Introduced soon after the state's new business courts began operating, SB 30 is part of a broader effort by Republican state leaders to make Texas more attractive to corporations by limiting avenues for costly litigation against businesses. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the three-term Republican who presides over the Senate, has designated the bill a priority alongside SB 31, which would make it harder for shareholders to sue publicly-traded companies, and SB 39, which would change how and when trucking companies can be held liable for accidents involving their drivers. All three bills are supported by Texans for Lawsuit Reform, an influential political action committee that received $1 million from Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk in October. Musk moved both companies' headquarters to the Austin area last year. More: Will a Texas bill shield trucking companies from crash lawsuits? It depends on who you ask Supporters of SB 30, such as the Lone Star Economic Alliance, say the bill will " bring balance back to the courtroom, protect small businesses, and reduce inflated costs that ultimately burden all Texans.' But the legislation has generated significant controversy, as was shown during seven hours of public testimony at a Senate State Affairs committee hearing and two hours of debate on the Senate floor. Democratic lawmakers and civil plaintiff attorneys say the bill would let defendants escape proportional punishment for wrongs they commit, particularly in sexual assault cases. Sen. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio, argued that SB 30 would decrease potential awards low enough to keep lawyers from taking some cases. 'Your constituents, from Brownsville down to El Paso, are going to have to face the reality that they're not going to have access to the courthouse because lawyers are not going to do it,' Gutierrez said on the floor. 'They're not going to go through the expense of having to fund these things if these damages are going to be done in such a way that their clients are not going to be made whole in a real way.' The Texas Trial Lawyers Association, a major donor to both Democrats as well as Republicans, is at the forefront of opposition to the measure. The organization's president, Jack Walker, told the American-Statesman that he believes the bill is a 'money grab' for insurance companies. 'The more severely injured or damaged a victim is, the more this bill prohibits their recovery,' Walker said in a phone interview. Consumer watchdog group Texas Watch also testified in opposition to the bill. Schwertner's proposal limits the medical costs that plaintiffs can claim to 300% of the 2025 Medicare reimbursement rate with an adjustment for inflation. The provision is meant to prevent lawyers from 'colluding with providers who overdiagnose, overbill and overtreat' victims to come up with inflated medical charges, the bill's author said. It would also require lawyers to disclose their relationship to doctors involved in treatment in certain cases. Opponents of the bill pointed out that doctors sometimes refuse to treat accident victims who can't pay for their costs upfront. Gutierrez — an attorney who founded a legal firm with offices in Austin, San Antonio and McAllen — said that in personal injury cases he has occasionally represented, 'I'd send (victims) to the one doctor that I knew that would sign a letter of protection and not take any money, because these people didn't have any money, they didn't have insurance,' he said. Noneconomic damages are also a point of contention in the proposed legislation. Currently, juries can look at each of six different categories, including disfigurement, loss of companionship and loss of enjoyment, to determine noneconomic damages. SB 30 would combine those six into two — past and future 'mental or emotional pain and anguish' and 'physical pain and suffering' — and raise the standards of proof for each. Past and future reputation damage is also included in the law. Plaintiffs would need to prove their injuries through medical records to back up claims of suffering, or, in the case of sexual assault victims, show they made a 'prior consistent statement' or have documents proving their injuries. Schwertner added the additional language regarding sexual assault victims in a floor amendment after Sens. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, and Angela Paxton, R-McKinney, raised concerns during the committee hearing. Walker, the Texas Trial Lawyers Association president, argues that the added language isn't enough to ensure fair compensation in such cases, in which decades may have passed between the assault and the litigation and thus medical evidence is difficult to obtain. 'In cases of grooming, most of the time, there is no consistent statement because the groomer requires silence,' Walker said. 'The victim, during childhood, often doesn't realize what is happening to them.' Several pro-business interest groups are advocating for the bill, including Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a political action committee that is a top donor to Texas Republicans and contributed $25 million to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in the 2024 elections. Additionally, the Lone Star Economic Alliance and a national business group, Protecting American Consumers Together, each announced six-figure and seven-figure ad buys, respectively, this month. 'Informed juries are better juries,' reads a billboard sponsored by the Lone Star Economic Alliance. Countering that, a new and little-known group called Citizens for Integrity and Accountability ran a television ad opposing SB 30 on Fox News, Brad Johnson of The Texan reported April 3. The ad says the bill 'limits damages that victims can get from Chinese corporations, drug companies and priests found guilty of child molestation.' During floor debate, Schwertner and Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, rejected claims that the bill would prevent Chinese-owned companies from facing accountability in the U.S. A major concern of the bill's supporters are so-called 'nuclear verdicts,' which happen when juries award damages of more than $10 million in a single personal injury or death case. In his intent statement for SB 30, Schwertner wrote that 'lack of clear guidance' in the law 'makes juries susceptible to being misled by arbitrary figures or comparisons to unrelated cases that distort their perception of fair compensation.' To address this, the bill directs that noneconomic damages are 'prohibited from being used to penalize or punish a defendant, make an example to others, or serve a social good,' as distinct from punitive damages. Opponents of the bill argue that it would limit their ability to force defendants to fix their behavior, whether through a major lawsuit or the threat of one. 'We can say, 'You have got to make policy changes, or this is what you're facing,'' Dallas-based attorney Charla Aldous said in the March 31 Senate hearing. 'Then, after we get a nuclear verdict, we can use that verdict to effectuate the policy changes.' Rep. Greg Bonnen, R-Angleton, is carrying SB 30's companion, House Bill 4806, in the lower chamber. Bonnen is a close ally of House Speaker Dustin Burrows and chairs of the House Appropriations Committee. Like Schwertner, he is also a physician. The bill has not yet been referred to a House committee. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas tort reform bill generates controversy, spending war
