Texas Senator Bryan Hughes, author of the much-slandered Texas Heartbeat Law, and the the Texas Medical Board, have reiterated that Texas Law does indeed allow for induced abortions during medical emergencies. These powerful statements clarifying the scope of Texas pro-life law address recent attempts by the media to misrepresent and discredit the state of Texas and Texas healthcare providers.
As reported by The Texan, the statement issued by Texas Medical Board President, Dr. Sherif Zaafran, M.D., FASA, referenced the rules regarding Texas’ pro-life law, which were issued earlier in the year. These rules explain that Texas law allows ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage treatment, and abortions in situations in which physicians reasonably judge that continued pregnancy poses a danger to the mother’s life or risk to a major bodily function – even if the danger to the mother’s life is not imminent.
“Physicians must use reasonable medical judgement, consistent with the patient’s informed consent and with the oath each physician swears, to do what is medically necessary when responding to an active, imminent, or potential medical emergency that places a pregnant woman in danger of death or serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function. Unfortunately, that sometimes includes induced termination of pregnancy,” the statement read, in part.
The Texas Medical Board statement emphasizes that guidance has already been provided to Texas physicians in the rules issued earlier in the year, and that any complaints about physicians who fail to meet the standard of care laid out in the Medical Board’s rules can be submitted to the Board for review for investigation and action.
The Medical Board points out that Texas physicians are aware of the provisions in the law for abortions determined to be medically necessary, and have been providing these abortions. “According to Texas Health and Human Services reports on induced terminations of pregnancy from August 2022 to June 2024, there were 119 documented instances of care provided under these exceptions, and to date, no physician has had disciplinary action taken against them by the Texas Medical Board for their medical intervention in these cases.”
In his statement published by The Houston Chronicle, Hughes addressed how ProPublica’s recent articles about Josseli Barnica and Nevaeh Crain misrepresented Texas’ pro-life law by obscuring the clear exception for abortions in medical emergencies and denying that the term “medical emergency” is defined by Texas law.
“I’m the author of the Texas Heartbeat Law. And sadly, I believe that these articles were written with the goal of misrepresenting that law. Like every Texas abortion law dating all the way back to the 1800s, the Heartbeat Law provides a clear exception for medical emergencies,” Hughes wrote.
READ: FACT CHECK: Media uses story to blast Alabama’s pro-life law… but there’s a big problem
Hughes notes that ProPublica “claims that Texas’ abortion ban does not define ‘medical emergency,’ leading the reader to believe that doctors have no guidance as to what the term means. As Hughes points out, the definition of a medical emergency due to pregnancy is clearly laid out in Chapter 171.002 (3) of the Texas Health and Safety Code.
Furthermore, Texas physicians and hospitals should already be familiar with the language in the Texas Heartbeat Law, as Hughes and others who drafted the Law retained the language that had been part of Texas Law for years. This was also noted in a recent Facebook video by OB/GYNs Dr. Christina Francis and Dr. Ingrid Skop, the latter of whom practices in Texas.
Hughes references the Medical Board’s clarification issued in June of this year that physicians are allowed to perform abortions they judge to be medically necessary, even if the danger to the mother’s life isn’t imminent.
“Under Texas law, Mrs. Barnica and Ms. Crain were experiencing medical emergencies, and doctors should have intervened to save their lives,” Hughes said.
Hughes believes the most likely reason Barnica and Crain didn’t receive the proper standard of care was the fearmongering from the media.
“Sadly, the most likely explanation is that the hospitals and their doctors were afraid to treat the women because of articles like these published by ProPublica. Pro-abortion groups and their allies in the left-wing media have been relentless in their attempts to scare doctors, pregnant mothers, and the general public into believing that Texas law prevents doctors from helping patients and saving lives,” Hughes said.
Hughes reiterated that most Texas doctors are aware of the exceptions laid out in law and in the Texas Medical Board guidance, as is shown by the Texas Health and Human Services Data. More needs to be done to ensure that physicians and hospitals know the law. The law itself is clear, however, and does not prevent doctors from doing their duty and saving their patients’ lives.
“We are thankful that most Texas doctors are getting this right. Clearly, however, more needs to be done to make sure that doctors and the hospitals know the law: When a mother’s life or major bodily function are in jeopardy, doctors are not only allowed to act, but they are legally required to act. The standard of care as well as their moral and ethical duty compel them to act. And contrary to what ProPublica would have us believe, Texas law does not prevent them from aiding their patients and saving their lives.”
Call on President Trump to pardon the FACE Act prisoners on his first day in office.
