Before the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that eliminated federal abortion protections, Texas saw an average of 4,400 abortions per month. Since then, that number⁣ has plummeted to approximately five per month. However, some Texas Republicans​ believe this ⁣decrease is not enough.

An unknown number of⁣ women have circumvented Texas’s near-total abortion ban, the most restrictive in the nation, by obtaining abortion pills from out of state or traveling elsewhere for the‍ procedure. Nationally, abortion rates have increased since individual states gained​ the power to regulate abortion.

The arrest on March 17 of midwife María margarita‌ Rojas and two of her⁣ employees marked the beginning of a new ⁣push to restrict abortion access in ⁣Texas.Ten days later, state legislators began debating a series of bills proposed by Republican lawmakers aimed at further limiting options for women seeking to⁢ terminate a⁤ pregnancy.

The proposed legislation targets multiple aspects of abortion access. Several bills seek to restrict access to abortion pills and prohibit public and private funding for travel to states ​where abortion is legal. Another bill,⁢ with bipartisan support, aims to clarify ambiguities in the current ban, which some say have led ​to increased cases‌ of sepsis and preventable⁤ maternal deaths. The current law’s broad language has created uncertainty about the ​severity of complications required for a doctor⁣ to induce an ‍abortion.

One in five Texas OB-GYNs‍ have considered leaving texas and 13% are‍ planning to retire early because of the state’s abortion laws,according to a Manatt Health⁢ survey published in October 2024.

SB2880: The “Law of​ Protection of Women and Child”

The broadest of the ⁤proposed measures, Senate Bill 2880,​ also known as the ⁢”Law of protection of Women‌ and Child,” seeks to strengthen restrictions on ‌those who perform abortions or assist women in ending a‌ pregnancy. It would allow private citizens to sue organizations, doctors, or individuals who mail Mifepristone or Misoprostol, common abortion drugs. The bill also ⁢targets technology ‌companies and‍ websites that facilitate the purchase of these pills, possibly affecting their activities both within and outside the state.

The law would impose criminal sentences, including life imprisonment, on those who finance​ abortions, ​even those performed‌ out of state. It also expands the authority ‍of the state’s attorney ⁣general, allowing them to prosecute individuals for abortions‌ if the local⁣ district attorney declines to⁤ do so. Additionally, it opens ‌the door to lawsuits ⁤for deaths caused by negligence, although women who undergo abortions would be exempt from prosecution.

Legal analysts suggest the law could face challenges based on freedom of expression, ‌movement, ⁣and ‍commerce protections.Though, legal battles are frequently enough lengthy, and the public⁢ may comply with the law due to fear of severe criminal penalties.

Other Proposed ⁢Restrictions

Along with SB2880, other proposals aim to restrict access to abortion pills.Two separate bills​ would require medical providers to be physically present⁤ in Texas before prescribing or providing abortion-inducing medications. another would classify the online sale of abortion ⁢medications ‌without prior in-person medical examination by⁣ a state doctor as deceptive commercial‍ practice. Still another ​seeks ⁤to classify mifepristone and misoprostol as ​controlled substances, similar to a ‍law in Louisiana that has been accused of delaying urgent treatment in cases of spontaneous abortion.

Another proposed law, prioritized by the ⁣Lieutenant ​Governor, would prevent cities and counties from ‌allocating funds to support abortions or ‌non-profit organizations that help ⁣people ‍travel out of state for⁣ abortions.

This proposal ⁤follows recent actions by the Austin and San Antonio city councils. Last year, Austin allocated⁣ $400,000 to help residents access⁤ abortion ⁢services‍ outside of ⁢Texas, ‍prompting legal challenges. San Antonio also allocated $500,000 to a ⁤reproductive‌ justice fund, but after ‌debate and legal action, none of the supported organizations directly provide abortions or logistical support.

Conscience Objections and Emergency Contraceptives

Several proposed bills seek to expand⁣ “conscience objection” rights, allowing health professionals to⁢ refuse to ⁤provide non-emergency medical assistance based on sincerely held moral convictions. These bills specifically ‌state that providers can decline to offer family planning, advice, ⁣and⁤ referral services related⁢ to contraception, sterilization, and abortion.similarly, another bill would allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense emergency contraceptives or abortion medications.

SB31:​ “Law⁣ of the Life⁣ of the Mother”

Senate‌ Bill‌ 31, or the “law ⁤of the⁣ life of the Mother,” has bipartisan support and would remove language from the Texas abortion ban⁤ requiring pregnant patients to have ⁣a “condition that threatens ⁣their life” before⁤ doctors can legally induce an abortion. Health professionals have argued that ⁤this requirement has ⁣caused unnecessary suffering and ‍increased medical risks. the bill would‌ clarify that abortion is ‌legally permissible if the pregnant woman is at⁣ “risk of losing an⁣ important vital function,” such as ⁢fertility, if the pregnancy ​continues.

Democratic Representative Donna Howard, chair of the House Women’s Health ‍Caucus, called the bill a ​necessary step forward but emphasized that it is indeed only the beginning of restoring reproductive rights for Texas women. The bill eliminates ‍criminal or civil sanctions and protects all health professionals involved in the ‍decision-making process, she said in a statement on March ‌14. However, she added, This proposal does not mean ​that the battle has been won… We need clarification now, and in the future, we need to restore access⁣ to health care for abortion for all ⁤Texans.

In the face of renewed efforts to restrict abortion in Texas, these changes represent a limited step forward for advocates of​ women’s reproductive rights.