Latest news with #SenateBill31
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Texas bill clarifying when doctors can perform life-saving abortions wins early House vote
(The Texas Tribune) — The House voted 129-6 on Wednesday to preliminarily approve a bill to clarify Texas' near-total abortion ban, after it passed the Senate unanimously last month. Despite wide bipartisan support for the bill, some conservative lawmakers raised concerns about whether this would create a loophole allowing doctors to 'rubber stamp' otherwise prohibited abortions. Bill sponsor Rep. Charlie Geren, a Republican from Fort Worth, stressed that this was not a 'choice bill,' but rather an attempt to ensure the existing limits of the law are 'clear, consistent, fair and understandable.' 'We do not want women to die from medical emergencies during their pregnancy,' Geren said. 'We don't want women's lives to be destroyed because their bodies have been seriously impaired.' Texas banned all abortions three years ago, with a narrow exception that allows doctors to terminate a pregnancy only to save a pregnant patient's life. Immediately, doctors and legal experts warned that this exception was too narrow and vaguely written, and the penalties too severe, to ensure that women could get life-saving care. That has proven true in many cases. Dozens of women have come forward with stories of medically necessary abortions delayed or denied, and at least three women have died as a result of these laws. Faced with these stories, Republican lawmakers have conceded that the language of the law might need some clearing up. Senate Bill 31, also called the Life of the Mother Act, does not expand the exceptions or restore abortion access. It instead aims to clarify when a doctor can terminate a pregnancy under the existing exceptions by aligning language among the state's abortion laws, codifying court rulings and requiring education for doctors and lawyers on the nuances of the law. The bill was tightly negotiated among lobbyists for doctors and hospitals, anti-abortion groups and Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Bryan Hughes of Mineola, who authored the bill, and Geren. 'These groups don't always see eye to eye,' Geren said. 'But in this case, they worked together to ensure pregnant women with pregnancy complications get appropriate and timely care.' In the Senate, Republicans threw their support behind the bill, while Democrats pushed back on its narrowness, noting that Texas law still does not allow abortions in cases of rape, incest or lethal fetal anomalies. 'The folks who are working on this fix are, from my perspective, the folks who have created the problem,' said Houston Sen. Molly Cook. 'Over the past four years, we've watched women suffer and die, and this bill is the confirmation that we all agree that something is broken in Texas.' In the House, however, the bill faced headwinds from the right, as conservative Republicans rallied to the idea that this bill would allow doctors to resume elective abortions. Rep. Brent Money, a Greenville Republican, said he believed the laws were clear as written but there had been 'malicious interpretations' by pro-abortion doctors. 'People that want to promote abortion have tried to make it murky what our current law is,' Money said. 'And so my question is to you, is this law written to ensure that malicious actors won't be able to find loopholes to allow abortions that would not be allowed under our current law?' Geren touted his own perfect record of voting for every anti-abortion measure that's come before the House in his long career, and assured Money and his fellow conservatives that this was not an end-run around the laws. 'We are in no way promoting abortion on this,' Geren said, adding later that if a doctor were to abuse this clarification, they could face 99 years in prison and 'they would deserve it.' Many anti-abortion Republican women rallied to Geren's side, including Rep. Shelby Slawson, a Stephenville Republican who carried the bill in 2021 that led to Texas banning nearly all abortions. She framed this bill as just codifying the Legislature's original intent to protect the live's of pregnant women. They took the mic to offer up examples of times doctors should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy – in cases of cancer diagnoses, kidney failure, premature membrane rupture, ectopic pregnancies. But still, some Republicans were not appeased. Rep. Briscoe Cain, a Deer Park lawyer who has been involved in some of the state's most contentious abortion litigation, asked Geren if 'more or less babies will die' as a result of this bill. Geren conceded that by affirming that doctors can perform abortions to save a woman's life, it was possible more babies would die, although he noted that many women were traveling out-of-state to get the same medical care they were denied in Texas. Rep. Brian Harrison, a Midlothian Republican, said he was 'alarmed' to hear Geren's comments, and said it was the 'height of irresponsibility to tinker with these pro-life protections that have already saved countless lives.' Some doctors groups, including the Texas chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have criticized the bill for not going far enough to protect doctors and the patients they treat. Others say these changes will be sufficient to free doctors to perform medically necessary abortions without fear of lengthy prison sentences and massive fines. 'At the end of the day, our hope is that political differences can be set aside, because at the heart of this is a pregnant mother whose health and safety are on the line,' Texas Hospital Association president John Hawkins said in a statement. 'Hospitals and doctors need to be able to act on the medical facts and merits in front of them, without fear of prosecution. We sincerely believe this will have an immediate and positive impact, helping us provide life-saving care to our patients.' Despite the back-and-forth between Republican factions over the bill, it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, with just six Republicans, including Harrison, voting no. Ten Republicans, including Cain and Money, declined to vote on the measure. The House also preliminarily approved Senate Bill 33 on Wednesday, which prohibits a city or county from using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion-related expenses. The bill is aimed at Austin and San Antonio, where city officials have allocated budget dollars to support abortion funds that help pay for people to travel to abortion clinics out-of-state. Despite efforts from Democrats to kill the bill on procedural grounds, it passed 89-57. Disclosure: Texas Hospital Association has been a financial supporter 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 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
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
21-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Proposal to clarify when Texas doctors can perform life-saving abortions faces critical vote
The House is slated to vote on a bill to clarify Texas' near-total abortion ban Wednesday, after it passed the Senate unanimously last month. The bill is expected to garner bipartisan support, despite some concerns from both sides of the aisle. Texas banned all abortions three years ago, with a narrow exception that allows doctors to terminate a pregnancy only to save a pregnant patient's life. Immediately, doctors and legal experts warned that this exception was too narrow and vaguely written, and the penalties too severe, to ensure that women could get life-saving care. That has proven true in many cases. Dozens of women have come forward with stories of medically necessary abortions delayed or denied, and at least three women have died as a result of these laws. Faced with these stories, Republican lawmakers have conceded that the language of the law might need some clearing up. Senate Bill 31, also called the Life of the Mother Act, does not expand the exceptions or restore abortion access. It instead aims to clarify when a doctor can terminate a pregnancy under the existing exceptions by aligning language between the state's abortion laws, codifying court rulings and requiring education for doctors and lawyers on the nuances of the law. The bill was tightly negotiated among lobbyists for doctors and hospitals, anti-abortion groups and Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Bryan Hughes of Mineola and Rep. Charlie Geren of Fort Worth, who carried the bill. 'All of these groups are going to, with one voice, tell the medical community and moms and everyone else, 'Here's the law in Texas. It's clear. Let's follow the law,'' Hughes said on the Senate floor in late April. In the Senate, Republicans threw their support behind the bill, while Democrats pushed back on its narrowness, noting that Texas law still does not allow abortions in cases of rape, incest or lethal fetal anomalies. 'The folks who are working on this fix are, from my perspective, the folks who have created the problem,' said Houston Sen. Molly Cook. 'Over the past four years, we've watched women suffer and die, and this bill is the confirmation that we all agree that something is broken in Texas.' In the House, however, the bill may face headwinds from both directions. In a committee hearing last month, some conservative Republicans raised concerns that this bill offered a loophole enabling doctors to work around the strict limits of the law. Rep. Mike Olcott, a Fort Worth Republican, asked what would prevent doctors from 'checking a box' to say a patient's life was in danger to provide 'abortion on demand,' a sentiment echoed by other conservatives on the committee. The bill's architects have been careful to say this is not a 'choice' bill, but rather a bill aimed at addressing doctors' liability and pregnant women's health needs. '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 at the committee. 'This is not a choice bill. This is a protect-the-mothers'-life bill.' Some doctors groups, including the Texas chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have criticized the bill for not going far enough to protect doctors and the patients they treat. Others say these changes will be sufficient to free doctors to perform medically necessary abortions without fear of lengthy prison sentences and massive fines. 'At the end of the day, our hope is that political differences can be set aside, because at the heart of this is a pregnant mother whose health and safety are on the line,' Texas Hospital Association president John Hawkins said in a statement. 'Hospitals and doctors need to be able to act on the medical facts and merits in front of them, without fear of prosecution. We sincerely believe this will have an immediate and positive impact, helping us provide life-saving care to our patients.' The House will also hear Senate Bill 33 on Wednesday, which prohibits a city or county from using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion-related expenses. The bill is aimed at Austin and San Antonio, where city officials have allocated budget dollars to support abortion funds that help pay for people to travel to abortion clinics out-of-state. Disclosure: Texas Hospital Association has been a financial supporter 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. First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Texas House votes to build statue of woman with unborn child on Capitol grounds
The Texas House passed a resolution Tuesday approving the construction of a Texas Life Monument at the state Capitol. The statue will replicate the National Life Monument originally installed in Rome and depicts a woman with an open womb and a child inside. Senate Concurrent Resolution 19 was authored by Sen. Tan Parker, R-Flower Mound, and passed the House by a vote of 98-44. Rep. Once Gov. Greg Abbott signs off on the resolution, it goes to the State Preservation Board, which will consider the plan for the monument's construction. Caroline Harris Davila, R-Round Rock, who sponsored the resolution, spoke in support of the monument. She said the statue will provide Texans with 'a public space to reflect on the beauty and sanctity of the love of a mother for her child.' 'The monument would serve as a peaceful space for families to honor motherhood, the strength of women, and the hope and beauty of human life,' Harris Davila said. Harris Davila also emphasized that the monument will not depict a uterus or any female reproductive organs that might sexualize the statue. According to her, it will be funded entirely through private donations, not public money. The statue will be installed on the grounds of the Capitol complex. Later this week, the House is expected to vote on Senate Bill 31, known as the 'Life of the Mother Act.' The bill aims to clarify when doctors in Texas can legally perform abortions to save a woman's life. For example, it defines what constitutes a medical emergency and explicitly permits doctors to remove fetal remains after a miscarriage. However, critics argue that the bill still falls short of adequately protecting women's health. Since Texas banned nearly all abortions following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, at least three women have died and dozens have been denied necessary medical care. Disclosure: State Preservation Board has been a financial supporter 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. First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
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.
