By
Jack Fink
Some conservative lawmakers at the Texas Capitol raised doubts about a new bill that won bipartisan support because it would clarify the medical exceptions to the state’s near abortion ban; however, groups opposing and supporting abortion rights, Democrats and Republicans, worked on the language of the bill and said that’s not the case.
As Republican State Representative Charlie Geren of Fort Worth outlined House Bill 44 to the House Public Health Committee this week, he emphasized his record of opposing abortion.
“I am not pro-choice,” said Geren. “I have voted for every anti-abortion bill that’s been in front of the House since I’ve been here for 24 years. This is not a choice bill. This is a protect the mother’s life bill.”
The legislation comes after women filed suit against Texas claiming the near abortion ban left their doctors confused about the medical exceptions and delayed their care when confronted with complications to their pregnancies.
The bill would not only allow an abortion to save the life of the mother, but also if the woman’s major bodily function would be at risk. State Representative Mike Schofield, R-Katy, expressed concern during the hearing.
“I think a lot of the pro-life community are worried that when you start making exceptions, they’ll become checkboxes to get around and get right back to elective abortion on demand,” said Schofield. “What’s in the bill that protects against that?”
Heather De La Garza Barone with the Texas Hospital Association said, “First and foremost, 170A prohibits abortions in Texas except in two cases: risk of death, risk of major impairment of bodily function. That is it.”
“We don’t change the law with respect to reporting anytime there is a termination within the hospital setting,” Lisa Kaufman with the Texas Civil Justice League said. “They’re still going to have to report it. They’re still going to have to document it.”
Another conservative lawmaker, Representative Katrina Pierson, R-Rockwall asked, “If the liability itself is removed and you’re allowed to make the decision that you believe is the right decision to make at that point in time, why do we have to change the language of life-threatening because that’s no longer an issue if penalties are removed?”
“You can have a risk of major bodily function that is not life-threatening,” said Kaufman. “The Medical Board and the Supreme Court have said that includes future fertility. So future fertility, though very sad, wouldn’t necessarily be life-threatening.”
One Democratic lawmaker, Representative Lauren Ashley Simmons of Houston, said she resented some of the questions by conservatives.
“I have a hard time sitting here and y’all being drilled this way,” said Simmons. “It frustrates me because I remember having to make hard choices. I’ve had two very difficult pregnancies and I remember being on the way to the hospital and my husband and I had to have a conversation if I have to make the call, what do we do.”
While the bill clarifies the medical exceptions, doctors who perform abortions that should not have still face criminal charges, the loss of their medical licenses, fines, and civil lawsuits. After all the testimony, the bill was left pending in committee. The same bill in the Senate has also remained pending in committee.
Watch Eye On Politics at 7:30 Sunday morning on CBS News Texas air and streaming
Featured Local Savings
