Bill curbing the flow of abortion pills into Texas likely dead
Senate Bill 2880 passed the Senate easily last month despite concerns from Democrats, but had languished in the House State Affairs committee before it passed out at the last minute. The report didn't make it to the committee that schedules bills to come to the House floor in time to meet the Tuesday deadline.
'This is a significant failure from the House,' Texas Right to Life president John Seago said. 'When you look at the opportunity this bill had, it seems like there was a deliberate effort to slow the bill down, if not to kill it.'
The bill would have allowed anyone who manufactured, distributed, prescribed or provided abortion pills to be sued for $100,000, expanded the wrongful death statute and empowered the attorney general to bring lawsuits on behalf of 'unborn children of residents of this state.'
The bill contained several unique legal provisions, including one that said the law could not be challenged in state court, prompting separation-of-powers concerns among legal experts. Any state judge who found the law unconstitutional could be personally sued for $100,000.
Conservatives blamed State Affairs Chair Ken King, a Republican from Canadian, for sitting on the bill for more than three weeks before passing it out at the last minute. More than 40 lawmakers signed onto a letter calling on King to bring the bill up for a vote.
'If Chairman King kills a bill that would protect tens of thousands of innocent children from the murder that is abortion, Republicans will be forced to hold him accountable,' said Rep. Nate Schatzline, a Fort Worth Republican, at a press conference on Friday.
King, a six-term Republican, is relatively moderate for the Texas House, which has become more conservative in recent sessions. While Texas Right to Life has been critical of his allegiance on certain abortion issues, even going so far as to endorse his primary opponents, other anti-abortion groups, like Texas Alliance for Life, have long supported him as an ally. King did not respond to a request for comment.
Seago intimated that King would be in the running for Texas Right to Life's 'biggest disappointment' award, but said the bill stalling out reflected a larger issue with House leadership. He credited Speaker Dustin Burrows, a Lubbock Republican, for his long-standing support on abortion issues, but said he didn't do enough to move the ball on this bill.
'For the speaker, it's not an issue of his values, it's an issue of his priorities,' Seago said. 'For something that is controversial like this, that is going to be a tough floor fight, you have to have the speaker not just say he's supportive of it, but actually push it.'
In a session busy with other conservative priorities like school vouchers, THC, bail and voting, further restricting abortion pills fell down the priority list for some lawmakers, especially as a majority of Texas voters opposed authorizing private lawsuits against someone who provides abortion pills.
After a bruising few years that saw the near-total banning of abortion in Texas, abortion access groups saw a sliver of hope in the failure of this bill.
'It wasn't so long ago that the Texas Legislature could pass any extreme anti-abortion law,' said Molly Duane, senior counsel with the Center for Reproductive Rights. 'This feels like a pretty radical change from just a handful of years ago.'
With the deadline for bills to come to the House floor in the rearview mirror, some conservative lawmakers are assessing ways to get aspects of the bill tacked onto existing legislation, or taken up in special session, Seago said. But he acknowledged these are likely long-shot proposals at this point in the session, which ends Monday.
'A lot of conservative legislators are looking for any and every opportunity to walk away with pro-life victories,' he said. 'So as long as that political window remains open, we'll keep pushing it.'
First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump can't save Olympic sports through EO, but could do this
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Resurfaced clip shows Epstein pleading the Fifth when asked if he was with Trump around underage girls
A resurfaced clip shows sex offender Jeffrey Epstein pleading the Fifth when he was asked during a deposition if he ever socialized with underage girls around Donald Trump. The video clip, unearthed by left-leaning outlet MeidasTouch, shows Epstein responding to questions during a March 2010 deposition. The disgraced financier was questioned by an attorney of an alleged victim, Vice News previously reported. In the clip, the attorney asks: 'Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?' Epstein replied: 'Though l'd like to answer that question, at least today l'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir.' Trump has never been accused of any crime in connection with the Epstein investigation and has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Pleading the Fifth refers to invoking the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and not self-incriminate. Epstein once pleaded the Fifth over 1,000 times in a deposition, which addressed his relationships with Virginia Giuffre, Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton, along with subjects including his former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, and his New York mansion. It is unclear whether that deposition, details of which were published in a trove of documents in January 2024, is the same 2010 deposition in which he was questioned about Trump. In the 2010 clip, the attorney also asked: 'Have you ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump?' Epstein asked what the attorney meant by a 'personal relationship.' The attorney rephrased, asking: 'Have you socialized with him?' 'Yes, sir,' Epstein responded. The attorney questioning Epstein is not identified in the clip. A deposition involves an individual giving sworn testimony outside of court, and can involve the names of dozens of people, but it does not mean they are implicated in any crimes. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung told The Independent that the clip is "nothing more than out-of-context frame grabs of innocuous videos and pictures of widely attended events to disgustingly infer something nefarious." "The fact is that The President kicked him out of his club for being a creep," Cheung said. "This is nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by the Democrats and the liberal media, just like the Obama Russiagate scandal, which President Trump was right about.' Epstein and Trump were known to socialize in New York and Palm Beach. The President had called Epstein a 'terrific guy' in a 2002 interview with New York Magazine but the pair had a falling out around 2004, The New York Times reports. Trump then barred Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago club 'for being a creep,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said. In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to prostitution charges and was sentenced to 18 months in a minimum-security facility in Palm Beach County. In 2019, Epstein was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges. He died by suicide in a New York City jail cell about a month after his arrest. His associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, is the only person who has been charged in connection with the Epstein case. The disgraced British socialite is serving a 20-year sentence in a Florida federal prison for her role in helping Epstein recruit, groom, and abuse young girls. The Trump administration has come under increasing pressure, from both Democrats and MAGA allies, to release more information since the Justice Department and FBI released a joint memo on July 6 indicating there would be no further disclosures in the Epstein investigation. The memo said there was no 'client list' containing names of Epstein's alleged high-profile associates. However, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi had insinuated that the same 'client list' was on her desk in February amid a tranche of Epstein files. The memo also confirmed Epstein died by suicide, pouring cold water on years of conspiracy theories around his death. The agencies released security footage taken from outside Epstein's cell in the hours leading up to his death to bolster their findings. But some have argued the footage was altered and has a 'missing minute.' The president has tried to quell the outrage, directing Bondi to make attempts to unseal grand jury testimony related to the Epstein investigation. Two judges in Florida and New York denied those requests this week on legal grounds. On Thursday, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Maxwell. Her attorney, David Markus, told reporters she 'never declined to answer' questions and did not invoke any privileges during the meeting. A federal judge rejected a separate request from Maxwell's attorneys to release grand jury transcripts Wednesday. House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer also subpoenaed Maxwell Wednesday as a growing number of lawmakers seek more information on the Epstein files. On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi had told Trump in May that his name appears in the Epstein Files. The president denied to reporters earlier this month that his name was in the files. Appearing in the files does not indicate that an individual has committed any wrongdoing. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung called the WSJ report 'fake news.' Last week, the WSJ also reported on an alleged 50th birthday card that Trump sent to Epstein. The WSJ described the 2003 note as including a drawing of a naked woman and Trump's signature made to look like her pubic hair. The report alleges Trump ended the note with a birthday wish for Epstein: 'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.' Trump denied the card existed, telling the WSJ: 'I never wrote a picture in my life.' The president has sued the newspaper, its parent companies and owner, Rupert Murdoch, for $10 billion. A spokesperson for Dow Jones, the paper's publisher, said the company has 'full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting.'
USA Today
23 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant.
