It has been four years and two legislative sessions since the Texas Legislature passed the strongest pro-life law in the nation, The Texas Heartbeat Law. That year, the Texas Legislature also passed other key laws to stop the mailing of abortion pills and re-enact our pre-Roe statutes with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The 87th Legislature was named the most pro-life session in Texas. What followed in the 88th Legislature was a strong bill to rename and refocus the Alternatives to Abortion Program and call it the Thriving Texas Families Program. This legislative session, Texas House and Senate members have introduced bills that address areas of pro-life laws that the public and the courts have brought to the attention of both pro-life and abortion advocates. While it might have seemed that the life issue was a sleeper issue last session, there has been plenty of discussion and debate surrounding the bills introduced this session related to life and the dignity of a human being.

 

Bills Introduced to Gain Clarity in the Law

Any person who paid attention during the election season is probably familiar with some of the campaign ads where women talked about Texas pro-life laws putting them at risk of severe health complications because doctors did not know how to appropriately provide care. The most well-known example was Amanda Zurwaski who was at the center of the Zurwaski v. Texas case.[1] Amanda joined other women in a lawsuit in 2023 challenging the Texas Heartbeat Law and the Human Life Protection Act after she experienced a preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes and was completely refused any treatment by doctors.[2] The Texas Supreme Court made it clear that “Texas law permits a life-saving abortion” and that the “under the Human Life Protection Act, a physician may perform an abortion if, exercising reasonable medical judgement, the physician determines that a woman has a life-threatening physical condition that places her at risk of death or serious physical impairment unless an abortion is performed.”[3]  

 

Nonetheless, two days before the bill filing deadline for the Texas Legislature, a new priority bill was announced, Senate Bill 31, the Life of the Mother Act. According to the bill analysis, S.B. 31, “Seeks to conform Texas abortion statutes to uniformly define the situation of when a medical emergency occurs by maintaining and clarifying protections against threats to the mother’s life and threats to her major bodily functions.”[4] However, there is much debate about whether this clarification is needed and if the clarification could possibly allow for more abortions. The Life of the Mother Act removes the term “life threatening” from the statute's exceptions and instead focuses on “substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant female”. There is no definition of what this would be. According to an article by Live Action, the bill also removes the portion of the Texas statute that says an abortion cannot be carried out due to the mother’s psychological condition, which Live Action considers to be leaving a large loophole in the law.[5] Some testifiers agreed that S.B. 31 had ambiguities that could be used to expand exceptions to abortion, like attorney and president of Texas Values Jonathan Saenz who explained to the Senate State Affairs Committee that the Texas Supreme Court was very clear and that there could be risk in removing the term “life threatening” in Texas pro-life statutes.[6]

 

An additional concern with S.B. 31, has been the glaring support the Planned Parenthood endorsed members have shown for the Texas House version of the bill, House Bill 44. Both bills, S.B. 31 and H.B. 44, have been presented in public hearings in both the Senate and House chambers and have not yet been voted on.

 

However, there are other laws that seek to clarify Texas abortion statutes to make sure doctors can accurately follow the law and provide care for both mother and baby. A long, contentious topic in pro-life laws has been explaining the treatment of ectopic pregnancies. While many in the pro-life and scientific community understand the difference between treatment for ectopic pregnancies and elective termination of a pregnancy, many members of the media and even the medical community identify treating ectopic pregnancies as abortions. Some women who experience ectopic pregnancies are even told that their treatment was an abortion. Thus, Senator Donna Campbell filed Senate Bill 2626 that further clarifies the definition of an ectopic pregnancy and requires doctors to receive continuing education on medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, and situations involving a dead or unborn child.[7]

 

Bills Stopping the Expansion of Abortion after Dobbs and Texas Heartbeat Law

The Texas Legislature once again plans to address the ways many cities like Austin and San Antonio use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. Since the Dobbs decision, the focus of city budget allocations to fund abortion has been on funding transportation for women to travel outside of Texas to obtain an abortion. Senator Campbell and Representative Candy Noble, who both passed the first laws in our state to stop taxpayer funds from going to abortion providers, are continuing their efforts this session. Senate Bill 33 authored by Senator Donna Campbell, ensures that there are no loopholes that cities like Austin can continue to exploit to fund abortion travel expenses.[8]  Senate Bill 33 had a public hearing in March, and I provided written testimony via my article “Abortion and the City: Austin’s Years-Long Series of Funding Abortions Maxes Out in Recent Budget Episode of $400,000 for Abortion Travel.[9] At publishing time, the bill is expected to have a vote on the Senate floor where it will then be sent to the Texas House for consideration.

 

Paying for a woman’s airfare and hotel to send her to obtain an abortion is not the only concern the state of Texas has had since Dobbs. Another concern is abortion pills being sent to women through the mail. Though Texas passed the ‘No Mail Order Abortion Law’, Senate Bill 4, in 2021; the abortion industry and even foreign entities have created surreptitious ways of getting dangerous abortion drugs to women. Senator Hughes filed Senate Bill 2880, which would use the civil enforcement mechanism of the Texas Heartbeat Law to be used to sue anyone who mails, delivers, or traffics abortion pills.[10] The bill also enhances the punishment for those who aid and abet an abortion and finds novel ways to address online trafficking of abortion pills on Internet websites and apps.

 

Bills Helping with Life Culture in the State

Texas also continues to ensure that our state has a pro-life culture that aligns with our pro-life laws. Senator Lois Kolkhorst filed SB 1388 to strengthen the Thriving Texas Families Program by ensuring that recipients of the money allocated for the program are pro-life and do not promote abortion.

 

Texas House Representative Nate Schatzline has also filed House Bill 1071 to establish the Texas Adoption Assistance Program.  Senator Paxton (Senate Bill 205) and Representative Cody Vasut (House Bill 196) have both filed bills that would require schools to teach that life begins at conception.

 

The Introduction of IVF Discussion at the Texas Legislature

This legislative session, the topic of in vitro fertilization received more attention as more bills were filed this session in support of expanding access. One bill, House Bill 618, was presented in a public hearing. The bill would use taxpayer dollars to ensure state government employees can have insurance coverage for invitro fertilization (IVF). The bill does not address any of the ethical concerns of persons making more embryos than they plan to implant, leaving many embryos abandoned. The bill also fails to address the use of eugenic practices in selecting embryos. The bill would also go against the millions of Texans who either belong to the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist Convention who both have stances against IVF. This would be a concern because the government, taxpayer dollars, would be used for the insurance coverage of IVF, which would go against some Texans’ sincerely held religious beliefs. Texas Values testified against the bill in a public hearing, and the only organization that testified in favor of the bill was the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), who is known for its abortion advocacy.

 

Conclusion      

The 89th Legislature has kept pro-life issues a top priority of concern. So far, the bills that have moved through the process the quickest could mean that Texas will have an effective way of protecting women from dangerous abortion drugs from online websites and city councils who want to traffic women across state lines for an abortion. Ultimately, policymakers and advocates alike can still be proud of the lives saved by laws passed in 2021, The Texas Heartbeat Act and the Human Life Protection Act.

 

____________________

[1]Eleanor Klibanoff, Texas Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Abortion Laws, Texas Tribune, May 31, 2024 https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/31/texas-supreme-court-zurawski-abortion/, accessed April 9, 2023.

[2] Id.

[3] Texas v. Zurwaski, No. 23-0629, (Tex. 2024) at 38.  

[4] Bill Analysis for S.B. 31 by Hughes, Senate Committee on State Affairs, March 25, 2025,  https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/analysis/pdf/SB00031I.pdf#navpanes=0.

[5]Nancy Flanders, Life of the Mother Act aims to clarify Texas abortion law exceptions, Live Action, March 26, 2025 https://www.liveaction.org/news/life-mother-act-clarify-texas-abortion-law/ .

[6]  Jonathan Saenz testimony on S.B 31, Senate Committee on State Affairs video, March 27, 2025 at 1:59:39-2:02:03, https://senate.texas.gov/videoplayer.php?vid=21513&lang=en.   

[7] Relating to Ectopic Pregnancies, S.B. 2626, 89th Texas Legislature, (2025)   https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/pdf/SB02626I.pdf#navpanes=0.

[8] Stopping Taxpayer -Funded Abortion Travel, S.B. 33, 89th Texas Legislature (2025). https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/pdf/SB00033I.pdf#navpanes=0 .

[9] Mary Elizabeth Castle, Abortion and the City: Austin’s Years-Long Series of Funding Abortion Maxes Out in recent Budget Episode of $400,000 For Abortion Travel, Society of St. Sebastian, September 15, 2024.  https://www.societyofstsebastian.org/austin-abort-fund-castle.

[10] Woman and Child Protection Act, Senate Bill 2880, 89th Texas Legislature (2025) https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/pdf/SB02880I.pdf#navpanes=0 . 

​

​