On Tuesday, April 22, the Texas State Affairs committee voted favorably for a revised version of Texas Senate Bill (SB) 31 (companion House Bill – HB 44), the Life Of the Mother Act. The goal of the Act is to clarify current state abortion law.
SB 31/HB 44, initiated because of erroneous and misleading claims made by pro-abortion activists about state laws protecting preborn children, would change the existing state code, aiming to clarify the current “exception for medical emergency.” The legislation would require physicians to take at least one approved course under continuing education requirements at no cost, as previously reported by Live Action News. Additionally, attorneys in the state would have access to a free educational course.
The legislation, authored by Senator Bryan Hughes and Representative Charlie Geren, recently caused alarm among some pro-life advocacy groups and individuals by its removal of the words “life-threatening” from the current pro-life laws. However, a committee substitute replacing the critical language along with a clarifying definition of what constitutes “life-threatening” aims to address these concerns.
Pro-lifers express concern prior to bill’s recent revisions
Prior to the updated verbiage changes — re-inserting “life-threatening” provisions along with the definitions found in the updated bill language — concerns were raised regarding the removal of specific verbiage from current law in the legislation.
Since Live Action News’ previous reporting on SB 31/HB 44, the bills have received committee hearings in both the Texas House and Senate, with ample testimony both for and against them.
During testimony in the House Public Affairs Committee hearing, pro-life Attorney Jace Yarbrough implied that the majority Democratic sponsors of the bill were beholden to advancing abortion, and that the bill’s language at that time simply could not be trusted. “Instead of clarifying the law, it changes it; instead of preventing expansion, it fuels it,” he said. “It fuels it by deleting a single phrase, ‘life-threatening,’ from the Human Life Protection Act, but without that single phrase, any impairment of a bodily function, including even mental health, can be, has been, and no doubt will be used to justify the ending of an unborn baby’s life.”
Yarbrough further argued:
HB 44 implicitly acknowledges this danger by referencing Texas’s Supreme Court decisions. Those decisions upheld the current law by focusing on the current phrase “life-threatening physical condition.” As the court put it, the Human Life Protection Act requires that the mother have a life-threatening physical condition. But courts can’t apply that reasoning if the very language of which the court relied… is stripped from the statute.
As introduced, HB 44 would do just that. Texas Courts are overwhelmingly textualist; they interpret statutory changes to reflect legislative intent; removing “life-threatening” would unquestionably broaden the law allowing abortion even when the mother’s life is not at risk.
Jonathan Covey with Texas Values testified as neutral on the legislation and had also shared concerns about the removal of “life-threatening,” citing potentially broadening the exceptions for which abortions would be allowed.
Other pro-lifers and abortion supporters testify in favor before recent revisions
Texas Right to Life president John Seago testified in favor of the legislation even prior to the revisions, noting the massive campaign of misinformation and outright “malicious lies about Texas pro-life laws” pushed by pro-abortion activists and medical professionals. Seago believes these lies and distortions about the law’s provisions are the cause of doctors’ confusion, necessitating clarification he claims the bill provides.
At the time, Seago stated, “The fact is that Texas bans elective abortions. However, Texas law has always, and today, allows medical intervention to save a mother’s life and avoid impairment of a major bodily function. Similarly, our law does not prevent treating a woman who is experiencing the heartbreaking situation of ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage.”
Executive Director of Texas Alliance for Life, Dr. Joe Pojman, also testified in favor of the legislation prior to its revisions, and cited data reported by the Department of Health and Human Services of the 151 abortions labeled under the “medically necessary” exception from the overturning of Roe through November 2024. Dr. Pojman stated, “No doctor has been prosecuted, sued, or sanctioned for any of those 151 abortions. No woman has lost her life for lack of an exception.”
Others testifying in support of the legislation included the pro-abortion group Texas Impacts and the pro-life organization Texans for Life.
Revisions made in hopes of alleviating concerns
Hoping to reassure pro-life supporters that necessary verbiage changes to SB 31/HB 44 have now been made through the negotiated committee substitute, John Seago told Live Action News, “With the education requirements and clarifying language in SB 31, Texas will prove a Pro-Life state can both ensure expecting mothers receive the best medical treatment in emergencies while protecting babies from the violence of abortion.”
Texas Right to Life further explains that “the committee substitute does the following”:
- Restores the provision that all medical emergencies be “life-threatening” in order to qualify for the exception to Pro-Life laws;
- Explains that a threat to a woman’s life does not have to first cause her harm before medical professionals can intervene to prevent future injury; (in other words, the harm does not need to be imminent, only foreseeable);
- Defines the term “life-threatening” used in Texas’ Pro-Life laws;
- Asserts that amendments made to state laws in the bill are not intended to be used to prosecute women seeking abortions; and
- Elaborates that all changes made to state laws in the bill are intended to be consistent with recent Pro-Life rulings from the Supreme Court of Texas on the topic.
Mark Lee Dickson, founder of Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn Initiative, had previously expressed concerns over the verbiage but now shares confidence in the updated language provided in the committee substitute.
“I trust Senator Bryan Hughes and House Speaker Dustin Burrows,” Dickson said. “Both men have played a vital role in passing some of the strongest pro-life laws in our nation. Neither one of them would want to do anything to jeopardize the end goal of an abortion-free America. With these appropriate changes made, I believe SB31/HB44 will be a bill that unquestionably strengthens our pro-life laws.”
The committee substitute is currently awaiting a scheduled date for a vote on the Senate floor. HB 44 is currently pending in the Public Health Committee.
