AUSTIN, Texas — Reproductive rights advocates and Democratic lawmakers typically march to the same drum, but one abortion proposal in the Texas Legislature has caused a rift.

What You Need To Know

  • A proposed bill in Texas aims to clarify when doctors can provide abortions in emergency medical emergencies, sparking debate among lawmakers and advocates

  • Critics fear it could reinforce the state's 1925 abortion ban, impacting out-of-state abortion funding

  • Despite bipartisan support, some advocates are criticizing Democrats for supporting the bill, saying it doesn't go far enough to protect reproductive rights

“Even if there is well-meaning intent, the reality is the bill does harm,” said Lucie Arvallo, executive director of Jane’s Due Process, a group that helps Texas teens get abortions and birth control.

In response to reporting last year on the deaths of three Texas women who had pregnancy complications but were not given medical care by doctors afraid of violating the state’s abortion ban, the proposed “Life of the Mother Act” is meant to clarify the state’s near-total abortion ban. The proposal says that doctors can provide abortions in medical emergencies, removing the need for it to be life threatening.

“No matter how they’re enforced, will have harmful consequences to Texans because people will shy away from the care,” said Kamyon Conner with Texas Equal Access Fund.

The proposal has bipartisan support and sponsors, including Austin Democratic Rep. Donna Howard—a former critical care nurse and long-time abortion rights advocate. Howard said the legislation isn’t perfect but goes a long way toward allowing pregnant patients to receive life-saving care. 

“It doesn’t do the things that I want to do in terms of opening up other exceptions. I am absolutely going to do anything I can that will have the ability to save the lives of Texas moms,” said Howard.

The legislation is supported by 36 House Democrats. A couple of reproductive rights groups such as Jane’s Due Process and Texas Equal Access Fund argue that because language in the bill amends a 1925 abortion ban, it could help lawyers argue that the pre-Roe v. Wade ban is enforceable and target people or groups who pay for out-of-state abortions.

“We would have to pause our work if this bill was passed in its current iteration,” said Arvallo.

But Howard says the language is necessary for the bill’s effectiveness.

“To make sure we have common definitions of this medical exception across all four statutes so that doctors do not have any threat whatsoever, we have to touch every single one of those statutes, including 1925,” said Howard.

Right now, the state is appealing a federal district court decision to block the 19th century ban. Howard confirmed conversations to create an amendment to prevent that law from impacting the proposal are ongoing.

“There is an effort to try to find some kind of a negotiated amendment that would clarify that this is not addressing the 1925 law and raising it in any way,” said Howard.

Without a clear rejection of the old law, advocates fear the worst.

“If this bill were to open a pathway to that, that would mean the criminalization of people for their pregnancy outcomes,” said Conner.

Related Stories