Baby Steps?
Reproductive health in the 89th was a mixed bag at best
This legislative session was not a complete loss for reproductive rights in Texas. Although the abortion ban is still in place, and many good bills aimed at solidifying women’s rights did not pass, good policies made their way across the finish line before the session came to a close. In the volatile climate of the legislature, small wins are the name of the game. Here’s our recap of the major bills impacting reproductive policy in the 89th session of the Texas Legislature.
First, the bad bills that died
Both chambers had their fair share of potentially devastating bills filed. Here are a few highlights—or rather, low-lights.
SB 2880 (Hughes) proposed civil liability for anyone involved in the production, distribution, or mailing of abortion-inducing drugs. It allowed for private lawsuits with minimum damages of $100,000 per violation, extended the statute of limitations to six years, and attempted to limit judicial review of its constitutionality. It also sought an amendment to the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, excluding abortion from the protections people of faith across party lines rely on. SB 2880 passed the Senate. Its companion HB 5510 had a hearing in the House, but neither bill advanced out of committee, despite the loud outcry from staunch conservatives.
HB 1636 (Oliverson) proposed classifying mifepristone and misoprostol—commonly used in medication abortions—as Schedule IV controlled substances, significantly restricting access to reproductive healthcare.
HB 2197 (Money) aimed to define the fetus as a person under Texas law and establish criminal penalties for actions that could harm an “unborn child,” including abortion. It was withdrawn from the schedule after being set for a hearing in the House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee.
SB 206 (Paxton) proposed expanding the scope of “wrongful death” claims to include fetuses at all stages of development, potentially opening new legal avenues for prosecuting individuals involved in abortion care.
Thankfully, none of these bills passed.
Good bills passed
SB 31 (Hughes) The Life of the Mother Act, clarifies that doctors can terminate a pregnancy that threatens the mother’s life. We are hopeful that this bill will lessen some of the dangerous effects of the abortion ban and its impacts on the lives of women in this state, and help prevent more cases of women dying as a result of delayed or denied medical care. SB 31 is silent on the issues of rape, incest, or fatal fetal anomalies, despite polling and other evidence that most Texans support allowing abortions in those circumstances. Nevertheless, it is a small but necessary clarification to the state’s otherwise draconian abortion policy.
HB 713 (Howard) provides a limited exception to healthcare providers, including nurses, who review maternal mortality and morbidity cases for the Texas Maternal and Morbidity Review Committee to review unredacted case materials.
Good bills that died
A number of bills were filed that would have limited or ended Texas’ abortion ban. None of these bills received hearings. In addition, several other bills were filed but not passed that would have advanced women’s health.
HB 1161 (Hinojosa) sought to ensure that advance directives and do-not-resuscitate orders for pregnant women are respected, emphasizing the importance of honoring women's healthcare decisions.
HB 1426 (Bucy) aimed to prohibit the issuance or enforcement of legal orders for menstrual health data, safeguarding personal health information.
HB 2140 (Simmons) sought to modify the composition of the Texas Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Review Committee to better address maternal health issues.
HB 220 (Ordaz) focused on improving standards of care for sexual assault survivors in healthcare facilities.
Bad bills that passed
SB 33 (Campbell) would ban local governments from allocating funds to organizations that help people get abortions by providing funds or logistical support for their out of state travel. it also would allow lawsuits against anyone who is known or thought to have used taxpayer money to provide support for an abortion. As providers of a host of potentially tax-supported ministries such as food pantries, domestic violence shelters, and childcare facilities, faith communities could be targets of such lawsuits, even if they do not provide support for abortion care.