Texas' abortion bans are here to stay despite narrow clarification
Standing before the Texas House of Representatives, Rep. Charlie Geren laid out his long history of voting for anti-abortion bills. He lauded the fact that Texas doctors could face up to 99 years in prison for performing an illegal abortion, saying 'they would deserve it.' He stressed that he was, in no way, interested in promoting abortion.
Bonafides established, Geren turned to presenting a bill to narrowly clarify the state's near-total abortion ban, ensuring pregnant women who were otherwise going to die, likely taking their fetus with them, could receive life-saving abortions.
The bill passed, to the great relief of doctors and hospitals who have been nervously treating complicated pregnancies under threat of life in prison for the last three years. But despite all the politicking required to get the legislation over the finish line, Texas' abortion laws have not meaningfully changed.
And if this session was any guide, abortion advocates say, they won't be changing anytime soon.
'Texas is still a state with an abortion ban, and an abortion ban is just an abortion ban, period,' said Shellie Hayes-McMahon, executive director of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes. 'I can't really celebrate what is like an arsonist bringing a cup of water to a fire.'
The overturn of Roe v. Wade was supposed to be a disaster for Republicans. These laws wouldn't stand, common wisdom held, and if they did, they would cost candidates responsible for them dearly at the ballot box. Women would die, doctors would flee and anti-abortion groups would be cast out of the party's inner circle, blamed for the forthcoming public relations crisis.
But three years later, the lawsuits seeking to overturn or amend the abortion bans have fizzled. Elections have only further entrenched lawmakers who enacted these laws in the first place. And when it came time to negotiate this amending legislation, anti-abortion groups were at the negotiating table.
Steve and Amy Bresnen, lobbyists for the bill, said they started with bigger ambitions, like adding in more exceptions and removing the life-threatening requirement.
'But if you do the work we do, you realize you have to go get what you can get,' Steve Bresnen said. 'We're not Gandhi. We're not Jesus. We're not Mohammed.'
When Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, Lauren Miller was sure this wouldn't stand. She didn't yet know she was pregnant, let alone that she would soon need to call on protections that were no longer available to her. But as a seventh-generation Texan who had watched the rising tide of anti-abortion legislation, she'd gotten used to the idea of some higher authority swooping in to save the day.
'I didn't think they'd undo the fall of Roe, because groups spent decades getting to this point,' she said in 2023. 'But I thought all the voices would rise up against it, unified, and that would make a difference.'
Three years — plus a doomed pregnancy, a frantic trip to Colorado, a lawsuit, a Congressional testimony, campaign appearances, and a season fighting at the Legislature — later, and Miller's usually indefatigable faith in Texas has waned a bit.
'We got a few scraps,' she said about the clarifying bill. 'It's frustrating to tell your story and feel like nothing is changing. I feel like the failures of the Texas Legislature are going to have to impact [everyone] personally before they realize they can't keep voting for these people.'
'And that could take a long time,' she added.
Without the safety net of Roe v. Wade, an initial lawsuit challenging one of Texas' abortion bans sputtered quickly. Two others, challenging the 2021 ban and seeking to protect abortion funds, are slowly crawling through the court system.
The most significant suit came from 20 women, including Miller, who said they were denied medically necessary abortions. Compared to pre-Dobbs litigation, this suit was narrow, asking the court to find the laws were unconstitutional as they applied to complicated pregnancies. The same lawyers also sued on behalf of Kate Cox, a Dallas mother of two who was experiencing medical complications related to carrying a non-viable pregnancy.
The Texas Supreme Court ruled against Cox, and later, against the 20 women.
'I never have expected a silver bullet, a single death, a single case, to change everything overnight,' said Molly Duane, senior counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which brought those suits. 'That's not how change happens in this country.'
Despite these losses in court, Duane said she remains optimistic that the same outrage that forced lawmakers to consider a clarifying bill may also begin to translate into election results, slowly changing the makeup of the legislature that creates the laws and the courts that interpret them.
Texas' abortion laws are extremely unpopular, with as many as 80% of voters saying they'd like to see additional exceptions, and Democrats have tried to capitalize on that dissonance.
But so far, that strategy hasn't panned out in Texas. In 2022, Abbott and Paxton sailed to reelection, alongside the usual cadre of conservative candidates, and in 2024, even as stories emerged of women who died as a result of these bans, Republicans swept the board nationwide.
Voters can't put an issue on the ballot in Texas, the way they can in other states, so the only real path to change is through winning elections.
'It's very easy for people to get demotivated in these election cycles,' said Hayes-McMahon. 'We've gained over 100,000 supporters since Roe fell, but we have to educate all people more, have to help them understand who they are voting for and why it matters.'
While litigation and elections were failing to move the needle, the Bresnens were looking at other avenues for change. The longtime capitol lobbyists started by asking the Texas Medical Board to clarify rules for doctors, and when that didn't satisfy them, they turned to unlikely allies in the fight to restore abortion access — the Texas Legislature.
'Because of the additional media attention, we thought this might be the time to strike and at least get an inch or a yard and just take back what we can, so to speak,' Amy Bresnen said.
The Bresnens are personally supportive of abortion. But they're also realists who were clear-eyed about how much change they'd be able to push through in one session — and who they'd have to involve to get there. Sen. Bryan Hughes, chief architect of many of Texas' strictest abortion bans, carried the legislation. Anti-abortion groups were at the negotiating table; women like Miller were not.
'I hear some of these groups saying, 'Sure, this will save some lives, but…'' Amy Bresnen said, referencing pushback from abortion supporters. 'There's no 'but' for us. If this will save some lives, we have to take it.'
She said she was grateful to the women who had shared their stories and helped force the issue for legislators, and hoped to return to ask for more in future sessions. Some abortion advocates applaud the incremental gains, while others reject it as political posturing from Republicans looking to distance themselves from the worst impacts of the ban.
'I think it was all just a political ploy so they could go into the midterms and say they fixed the bans,' Miller said.
She wants to believe this is the beginning of a slow whittling away at these bans. But it's hard to see that future when she looks at the current makeup of the chambers and the work it took to get this bill through.
'I know you have to eat an elephant one bite at a time, but we're going to have to take much bigger bites,' she said. 'The current situation is just dangerous. It's not tenable.'
John Seago, the executive director of Texas Right to Life, said his group doesn't see this as the opening gambit in a larger rethinking of the abortion laws. There are some areas they'd be willing to continue to discuss, like how the laws are interpreted in cases like Miller's, where one twin is threatening the life of the other. But their primary focus is on restricting access to illegal abortions.
'There were problems that we needed to address with [SB] 31, and I was very happy with the line we were able to walk on that,' he said. 'But to make progress, to move forward, we really need to move on abortion pills.'
A major bill to crack down on abortion pills, also carried by Hughes, failed to pass this session, much to Seago's frustration.
But if he and Miller agree on one thing, it's that they don't want people getting the impression that the Texas Legislature is getting soft on abortion.
'I need people to not fall for this and think it's all fixed now,' Miller said. 'And I really need us all to get a little bit louder about having our rights taken away.'
Disclosure: Planned Parenthood has a been 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.
Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer.
Get tickets.
TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
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 parliamentarian rejects GOP's attempt to limit courts' contempt powers
The Senate parliamentarian has ruled against a controversial provision in the Senate Republicans' megabill that would have made it significantly more difficult for courts to enforce contempt findings against the Trump administration. The parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that limiting courts' ability to hold Trump officials in contempt violated the Senate's rules governing what can be passed with a simple-majority vote on the budget reconciliation fast track. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) hailed the parliamentarian's decision as a major victory. 'Senate Republicans tried to write Donald Trump's contempt for the courts into law — gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy,' Schumer said in a statement responding to the development. 'But Senate Democrats stopped them cold. We successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision,' he said. The provision, tucked into the thousand-page bill House Republicans passed in May, would have required anyone suing the federal government to pay a bond before a court would be allowed to use its contempt power to enforce injunctions and other rulings. Courts have already ruled more than 190 times against the Trump administration since January. The controversial language received little notice when it came to the floor, and Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) later caused an uproar at a town hall meeting when he admitted he didn't know the provision was in the legislation when he voted for it. 'If enacted, this would have been one of the most brazen power grabs we've seen in American history — an attempt to let a future President Trump ignore court orders with impunity, putting him above the law,' Schumer said Sunday afternoon. 'Donald Trump is not above the law. And thanks to Senate Democrats — including the tireless work of Senator Durbin and the Judiciary Democrats — the courts can still hold him and any president accountable,' Schumer said, referring to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
KY Rep. Thomas Massie is at odds again with Trump over Iran. Here's the history
Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and President Donald Trump don't always see eye-to-eye. In fact, the two Republicans have been at odds for most of Trump's second term. Massie was one of only two House Republican 'no' votes on the president's massive spending bill, and he's been the loudest voice in the room against Trump's actions against Iran. And on Saturday, Massie led GOP opposition to the Trump administration's intervention in the Israel-Iran war by striking three Iranian nuclear development sites. Trump has repeatedly called the 4th Congressional District Rep. a 'grandstander' and said earlier this year he 'should be primaried.' The past few months are just the latest in a long history between Massie and Trump, though. The pair agree on many conservative principles, and have endorsed each other at points, but Massie's relationship with has been among the most frictional of any sitting lawmaker over the years. Here's a timeline: Massie, a critic of most precautionary measures adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic, forced an in-person vote on a Trump-backed relief package early in the pandemic in 2020. Members of both parties criticized Massie, and Trump called him a 'third-rate grandstander.' The president also urged Republican leaders at the time to 'throw Massie out of Republican Party.' Later that year, a GOP primary challenger's attempt to brand Massie as disloyal to the president fell far short of success. The challenger, Todd McMurtry, notched 19 percentage points to Massie's 81. During the next election cycle, Claire Wirth took a similar tack and lost by roughly the same margin. Shortly after Massie's primary win, Trump endorsed him for the general election, calling the representative a 'Conservative Warrior' and a 'first-rate Defender of the Constitution.' In 2023, Massie hitched his wagon to the GOP presidential primary campaign of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. The governor was viewed widely as the most viable Republican alternative to Trump. Massie made several out-of-state appearances with DeSantis before DeSantis withdrew from the race in early 2024. In May 2024, Massie trounced his two GOP primary opponents, including Eric Deters, a Northern Kentucky political figure who has hewed close to Trump. In October 2024, just 11 days before the general election, Massie endorsed Trump in his ultimately successful bid for president. One of Trump's first legislative priorities was a funding bill that averted a government shutdown. Massie was the only 'no' vote on the bill in March of this year, prompting Trump's call that he 'should be primaried,' and vowing to 'lead the charge against him.' In the midst of that scrum, former co-manager of the Trump 2024 presidential campaign Chris LaCivita posted a cryptic message on social media indicating he'd work against Massie. As of late June, a legitimate primary challenger has yet to be announced. On Trump's wide-reaching 'Big Beautiful Bill,' Massie was unflagging in his opposition, citing its likelihood of increasing the national deficit and not cutting entitlement programs like Medicaid as much as he'd like. Trump made a pitch to Massie face-to-face at a House GOP caucus meeting in May, and Massie was unmoved. Two days later, Massie was one of just two House GOP members to vote no on the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Since the conflict between Israel and Iran has heightened in the last 10 days, Massie has been one of the leading anti-intervention voices on the American right. Trump has not responded directly to Massie's activism, which turned to stark criticism following the U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites Saturday. Massie has asserted that the administration needed to consult Congress before launching the attack, and last week introduced a resolution against U.S. involvement in the war. Massie joined his resolution's co-sponsor, California Democrat Ro Khanna, for an interview on CBS Sunday denouncing the strikes. He framed the aggression as going against a crucial part of the new Republican party that stands against foreign intervention, adding he believes it was 'a good week for the neo-cons in the military industrial complex who want war all the time.'
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Americans react to US strikes on Iran with worry as well as support for Israel
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — One of Layton Tallwhiteman's earliest memories was watching the news at his uncle's house in Montana in 2003 and seeing the U.S. bomb Baghdad to launch the war in Iraq. Recollections of that war — waged in part to find weapons of mass destruction that did not exist – flooded back for Tallwhiteman after President Donald Trump ordered weekend bombing strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities amid its escalating conflict with Israel. The administration has indicated it wants to avoid getting pulled into all-out war. Tallwhiteman, who grew up on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation southeast of Billings, is skeptical. 'Their idea is to eliminate the threat. Like Bush said in Iraq, 'We're going to eliminate the threat. We're going to find weapons of mass destruction and eliminate them.' Did that work the way he planned? No, obviously it didn't,' said Tallwhiteman. The 30-year-old driver for a food distribution company said he usually votes Libertarian, but backed Democrat Kamala Harris over Trump last year. Across the U.S. on Sunday, Americans expressed a mixture of support, apprehension and confoundment at the bombings, which officials said caused severe damage to Iran's nuclear sites. Administration officials said the strikes left room for Iran to return to negotiations over its nuclear program. Yet if the conflict spirals, it could test Trump's foreign diplomacy skills and also his support at home. 'It had to be done' B-2 bombers that participated in the weekend strikes returned home to Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri on Sunday. Nearby, retired Air Force veteran Ken Slabaugh said he was '100% supportive' of Trump's decision and the military personnel who carried it out. Slabaugh said Iran has showed resistance to negotiations over its nuclear program for decades, a problem that he said Trump inherited. Iran can't be trusted, Slabaugh said, nor allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. 'It simply had to be done,' he said of the strikes, adding that he's now concerned for members of the military around the world. 'I'm proud of the guys and the gals that are doing the work out there. Nobody in the world does this like we do, and we have the freedom and liberty we enjoy because of that,' Slabaugh said. In Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, Andrew Williams, 18, said he was surprised by the timing of the attack given that many Republicans had expressed opposition to U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war. Still, he thought it was necessary if Iran was building nuclear weapons. 'If we are able to get rid of that, that is something we should do,' Williams said. Robert Wallette of Billings said Trump had 'good reason' to conduct the bombing as a demonstration of American support for Israel. 'Iran's evil, evil people. They hate Americans,' he said. Concern about conflict spinning out of control Wallette, 69, a retired contract specialist at the federal Indian Health Service, said he hated Trump when the Republican was first elected because of his arrogant style. His perspective started to shift after Trump moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In 2024, Wallette voted for Trump based on his promises to curb illegal immigration, putting him among the 60% of voters backing Trump last year in Yellowstone County, which includes Billings. Notwithstanding his support, Wallette was unsure if Trump can avoid the U.S. getting drawn into a deeper conflict with Iran. 'Other countries are getting involved and this may be out of his control,' he said. Kent Berame, 32, of Davie, Florida, said it was a little outrageous for Trump to go rogue and approve the attack without explicit support from Congress. He said he doesn't agree with the United States supporting Israel's recent attacks on Iran. 'There's concern that we're putting troops in danger,' said Berame, a Democrat who owns his own marketing company. 'And obviously there's a retaliatory response toward all of our bases over there.' Berame said it's frustrating that the U.S. might be increasing hostilities with Iran just a few years after finally ending the war in Afghanistan. 'I don't want to see any U.S. soldiers in harm's way or in danger,' he said. Back in Billings, Trump voter Patty Ellman said she worries about the U.S. getting sucked into another extended conflict. 'We have enough going on in America to get into other countries' wars. Let's just take care of us right now,' she said. Ellman, a 61-year-old who stepped in as caregiver for her ex-husband after he suffered a stroke, said the U.S. should retaliate if attacked, but otherwise stay out of Iran's conflict with other countries. 'That's their business,' she said. 'We need to worry about Americans and how we're going to survive and are we going to have Social Security.' With contributions from David Fischer in Davie, Florida; Nicholas Ingram in Knob Noster, Missouri; and Mingson Lau in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.
