Texas Senator Bryan Hughes, author of the much-slandered Texas Heartbeat Law, and the Texas Medical Board, have reiterated that Texas Law allows physicians to make decisions using “reasonable medical judgment” when medical emergencies arise during pregnancy. Hughes and the Board are attempting to clarify the scope of Texas pro-life law, addressing 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 the ending of pregnancies in which physicians reasonably judge that continued pregnancy poses a danger to a 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 judgment, 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. “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. “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 during 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 referenced the Medical Board’s clarification issued in June of this year, stating that physicians may act in cases of medical emergency, 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. 

In Barnica’s case, she was already in premature labor, yet nothing was done to prevent an infection or to aid Barnica in completing the imminent delivery of her 17-week child (who was too young to survive outside the womb) until 40 hours later. In Crain’s case, her symptoms were misdiagnosed, and she was not obstetrically examined as she should have been. Clinical signs of sepsis were noted by physicians yet she was discharged and sent home. By the time she returned to the hospital, it was too late; her baby died, and she died soon after as a result of sepsis.

Hughes said, “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 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 — but this is no thanks to the usual medical organizations that offer guidance to physicians. According to Texas OB/GYN Dr. Ingrid Skop, what is particularly unusual is that these medical organizations — which typically offer guidance for new rules like HIPAA, The Affordable Care Act, and even regarding how to properly prescribe opioids — have offered no such guidance on state laws, and have in many cases even added to physicians’ confusion.

Pro-life laws, including the Texas law, do not prohibit the life-saving care of chemotherapy, surgery for ectopic pregnancy, preterm delivery for preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), insufficient cervix, or infection such as sepsis, or any health condition or pregnancy complication. If doctors don’t understand the difference between the natural death of a preborn child or premature newborn and the intentional killing of those children (often through lethal injections and dismemberment), the problem is with the doctor, not the law.

“None of the medical organizations voluntarily helped the doctors understand the law, and in fact, sometimes they were stirring up the confusion and fear themselves… and then when doctors did become confused and provide sub-quality care… then that’s being pointed at as demonstration that the laws are confusing,” Skop said in a video discussion with fellow OB/GYN Dr. Christina Francis. 

“We are thankful that most Texas doctors are getting this right,” noted Sen. Hughes. “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.

Texas Senator Bryan Hughes, author of the much-slandered Texas Heartbeat Law, and the Texas Medical Board, have reiterated that Texas Law allows physicians to make decisions using “reasonable medical judgment” when medical emergencies arise during pregnancy. Hughes and the Board are attempting to clarify the scope of Texas pro-life law, addressing 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 the ending of pregnancies in which physicians reasonably judge that continued pregnancy poses a danger to a 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 judgment, 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. “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. “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 during 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 referenced the Medical Board’s clarification issued in June of this year, stating that physicians may act in cases of medical emergency, 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. 

In Barnica’s case, she was already in premature labor, yet nothing was done to prevent an infection or to aid Barnica in completing the imminent delivery of her 17-week child (who was too young to survive outside the womb) until 40 hours later. In Crain’s case, her symptoms were misdiagnosed, and she was not obstetrically examined as she should have been. Clinical signs of sepsis were noted by physicians yet she was discharged and sent home. By the time she returned to the hospital, it was too late; her baby died, and she died soon after as a result of sepsis.

Hughes said, “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 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 — but this is no thanks to the usual medical organizations that offer guidance to physicians. According to Texas OB/GYN Dr. Ingrid Skop, what is particularly unusual is that these medical organizations — which typically offer guidance for new rules like HIPAA, The Affordable Care Act, and even regarding how to properly prescribe opioids — have offered no such guidance on state laws, and have in many cases even added to physicians’ confusion.

Pro-life laws, including the Texas law, do not prohibit the life-saving care of chemotherapy, surgery for ectopic pregnancy, preterm delivery for preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), insufficient cervix, or infection such as sepsis, or any health condition or pregnancy complication. If doctors don’t understand the difference between the natural death of a preborn child or premature newborn and the intentional killing of those children (often through lethal injections and dismemberment), the problem is with the doctor, not the law.

“None of the medical organizations voluntarily helped the doctors understand the law, and in fact, sometimes they were stirring up the confusion and fear themselves… and then when doctors did become confused and provide sub-quality care… then that’s being pointed at as demonstration that the laws are confusing,” Skop said in a video discussion with fellow OB/GYN Dr. Christina Francis. 

“We are thankful that most Texas doctors are getting this right,” noted Sen. Hughes. “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.