New state laws aim to clarify abortion bans. Doctors say it's not so simple.
Texas, Kentucky and Tennessee all passed laws this year ostensibly clarifying the scope of its abortion bans, a reaction to climbing sepsis rates and harrowing stories of patients who have suffered or died preventable deaths. Since June 2022, lawmakers in at least nine states have introduced such bills.
But doctors, attorneys and policy experts say that the laws being enacted will not solve the problems health providers have been forced to navigate since the end of Roe: The risk of being punished has deterred physicians, hospitals and health systems from providing consistent care, even when it is needed.
'The problem with these clarifying laws is they don't expand access under the law, they don't change the definitions, and they don't remove the legislative interference in the practice of medicine,' said Molly Meegan, chief legal officer and general counsel to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
In Texas, a bill that awaits Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's signature ostensibly clarifies when the state's near-total abortion ban allows for the procedure, saying explicitly that physicians do not need to wait until a patient is in imminent danger of dying to perform an abortion. The bill also requires training for doctors and lawyers on the state's abortion law.
But lawmakers have made clear that the bill, crafted in consultation with Texas-based health professionals and abortion opponents, does not introduce new exceptions; Texas' ban does not allow for abortions in cases of rape, incest or fatal fetal anomaly. And if enacted, it would codify a Texas Supreme Court decision that found that the state's ban still applied even in cases with complications that could threaten a pregnant person's health.. Such was the case for Dallas woman Kate Cox, who experienced amniotic fluid leaking and cramping — which create the risk of bacterial infection — after discovering a likely-fatal fetal anomaly in her pregnancy.
Some former abortion patients whose lives were endangered because of delayed or denied care, including several who challenged the Texas abortion ban, said they fear Senate Bill 31 may not address situations like theirs.
Amanda Zurawski, who sued the state after being denied an abortion when experiencing a life-threatening condition called preterm premature rupture of membrane, said at a legislative hearing on the bill that it likely doesn't provide the clarity she would have needed.
'It is unclear whether SB 31 would have prevented my trauma and preserved my fertility had it existed in 2022, and I find that problematic,' Zurawski said. She only received care after she developed sepsis.
Clarification bills can have mixed support in legislatures. Local physicians might back tweaks to exemption language if they see it as potentially lifesaving for their patients. Some anti-abortion advocates might also favor changes if the legislation can address certain medical emergencies that they believe fall outside of a state's ban, such as ectopic pregnancies or preterm premature rupture of membranes.
But not all anti-abortion advocates or Republican lawmakers within these statehouses support even a small clarification.
'I think in all these cases, lawmakers are being pulled in different directions by these different constituencies,' said Mary Ziegler, an abortion law historian at the University of California, Davis. 'The bills themselves are kind of muddy, because they're trying to be different things to different people.'
The end result are clarification laws that remain unclear to physicians and their employing hospitals and health systems, who can still face high penalties for violating an abortion ban.
'When the law isn't clear, physicians don't intervene,' Ziegler said. 'You're not going to be willing to gamble your liberty and your medical license on an uncertain interpretation of the law.'
In Kentucky, doctors vocally opposed a Republican-backed bill that supporters said would help health professionals understand when they can provide abortions. Like in Texas, the state's ban only allows abortion when it is necessary to save a pregnant person's life. The clarification bill listed specific conditions that would qualify for an exception to the ban — such as sepsis, hemorrhage or ectopic pregnancy — despite concern from doctors that a delineated list wouldn't be able to predict every possible situation where an abortion might save someone's life.
Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed the bill in March, calling gaps in the law 'literally a matter of life and death.' The state's legislature, where the GOP holds a supermajority, voted days later to override him.
'It's hard to create this laundry list of, 'This is OK, this is not OK,' because unfortunately, medicine is something with a bunch of gray areas,' said Dr. Caitlin Thomas, an OB-GYN in Louisville.
In Georgia — where pregnant, brain-dead woman Adriana Smith remains on life-support until she can give birth later this summer, and where the death of Amber Thurman was attributed to the confusion created by the state's abortion ban — some lawmakers have asked physicians whether a clarification might allow doctors to provide abortions when the pregnancy threatens a patient's life, possibly by listing specific conditions that qualify for an exception.
'We encouraged them not to, and said that would not be helpful,' said Dr. Neesha Verma, an Atlanta-based OB-GYN. 'The more and more prescriptive you make these laws, the less space there is for clinical judgment.'
Following a case filed by seven Tennessee patients who had been denied abortions under the state's ban, lawmakers in that state passed a law this year meant to clarify that, under the state's ban, abortions could be performed in cases of preterm prelabor rupture of membrane or severe preeclampsia, but that the exception did not include mental health emergencies. Mental health conditions including substance use disorder, depression and confirmed or probably suicide are the largest single cause of pregnancy-related deaths in the state, according to a 2022 report.
The interest in clarifying bans — including from some lawmakers who oppose abortion — 'is a response to where we know the public is and the fact that we know the public is generally supportive of abortion access and also has been presented with these terrible preventable cases since Dobbs,' said Kimya Forouzan, who tracks state policy for the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit abortion research organization.
That ambiguity was on display in a Texas case last year. A state judge held that the state's abortion law exception permitted Cox to have an abortion when her doctors discovered the anomaly in her pregnancy. But the state's attorney general, Ken Paxton, swiftly intervened, threatening legal action against any health care provider that performed an abortion on Cox. Cox ultimately left the state to terminate her pregnancy.
Michele Goodwin, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine and author of 'Policing the Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood,' said state officials can do more to ensure health providers know their legal rights.
'It would be credible for states' attorneys generals and the prosecutors who are conservative to immediately issue statements of clarity, saying that they are opposed to these kinds of conditions, that they will not prosecute,' she said.
The post New state laws aim to clarify abortion bans. Doctors say it's not so simple. appeared first on The 19th.
News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
13 hours ago
- Forbes
Changes In Prior Approval Coming To Traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage
There were two major announcements recently regarding prior approval of treatments and services for Medicare beneficiaries. In most medical insurance, many treatments won't be covered unless it is approved first by the insurer. It's been a source of controversy for some time. Original Medicare hasn't required prior authorization of treatments and services, with a few exceptions. For most care, providers and the patient agree on a treatment. After the treatment, paperwork for approval and payment is submitted to Medicare. Medicare recently announced a new model program that will test pre-approval. The voluntary model program will test pre-approval for some services and treatments, according to a recent announcement from the Center for Innovation of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The model program is seeking medical providers to volunteer for the program from Jan. 1, 2026 through Dec. 31, 2031. The model will be restricted to New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, and Washington. Providers who volunteer and are accepted will agree to seek prior authorization for 17 items and services, including skin substitutes, deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's Disease, impotence treatment, and arthroscopy for knee osteoarthritis. A provider who volunteers for the program can choose not to seek prior approval for a case. There will be a post-treatment review of the case, and the provider will risk not being paid by Medicare for the treatment. CMS initiated the program and selected the services to be covered because of a series of reports showing waste, fraud or abuse in certain areas. For example, Medicare spent up to $5.8 billion in 2022 on unnecessary or inappropriate services that had no clinical benefit, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Under the model, providers will submit the same information they currently submit for payment approval after a service is provided to a beneficiary. The difference is that under the model, the information will be submitted earlier and the provider will wait for approval before performing the services. CMS will select companies to receive and review the prior authorizations. It expects that they will use artificial intelligence and other tools in addition to medical professionals to review the submissions. The companies will be paid based on the extent to which they saved the government money by stopping unnecessary services. CMS said it will manage the program to avoid adverse impact on beneficiaries and providers. There was other news about pre-approval, this time involving Medicare Advantage plans. Pre-approval in Medicare Advantage plans has been controversial recently. There have been a number of recent reports and studies that found the authorization process was delaying treatment or causing patients to abandon treatment plans. Other reports indicated that a high percentage of treatments that initially were denied coverage eventually were approved if the patients or their providers appealed the than 50 major insurers who sponsor many types of insurance plans announced that they will voluntarily streamline prior authorization of treatments and services in all insurance markets, including Medicare Advantage plans. The insurers say they plan to have the new process in place by Jan. 1, 2027.


San Francisco Chronicle
18 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
No, California is not guaranteed to remain an abortion haven
The sudden closure of five Planned Parenthood clinics in Northern California last week reveals a sad, stark truth: California is not the national 'haven' for abortion rights that it has aspired to be since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. No state could be under Republican rule in Washington, or while federal law trumps state law, the Supreme Court majority opposes abortion rights and clinics are reliant on federal money to survive. There are few options to fix this problem, even in California, the world's fourth-largest economy. The state barely covered its budget deficit this year, and it has holes to fill as federal funds for public universities, education, transportation and other sectors were slashed in the recently passed budget. Plus, the state needs federal dollars to help rebuild Los Angeles after the devastating wildfires there earlier this year. Ten million Americans are expected to lose their health insurance because of nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Meanwhile, the wealthiest Americans will receive a disproportionate share of the tax cuts funded by those reductions, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. 'It's an illustration of the limits on what any state can do (on abortion access) if the federal government is hostile,' said Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at UC Davis and leading scholar on abortion rights. 'It's more of a reminder that there isn't really a real sanctuary. California has limited power over a lot of this.' It is the latest example of how California is in the political crosshairs of what President Donald Trump's former top adviser Steve Bannon famously described as his 'muzzle velocity' philosophy of launching a lot of disruptive policies and spurious attacks simultaneously. California is withering under the incoming fire. The people hurt most by the closure of those clinics will be the poorest Californians, as 80% of the people who used services at those clinics were Medicaid recipients, according to Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, the umbrella organization for the shuttered clinics. Planned Parenthood doesn't just provide abortion services. The majority of people go to Planned Parenthood clinics for contraceptive services, sexually transmitted infection testing, pregnancy testing and gynecological services. One in 10 (11%) female Medicaid beneficiaries ages 15 to 49 who received family planning services went to a Planned Parenthood clinic in 2021, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. California has the highest percentage (29%) of Medicaid recipients in the country who go there for health care. This wasn't the way it was supposed to go. California was supposed to be a haven for abortion rights after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Shortly after the decision, Gov. Gavin Newsom joined the governors of Washington and Oregon to create what he called 'the West Coast offensive. A road map for other states to stand up for women.' A diverse coalition of abortion rights advocates formed the California Future of Abortion Council. It proposed more than 50 recommendations for policymakers to improve abortion access in the state. In the year after the decision, Newsom and the Democratic-controlled Legislature created more than a dozen new laws and invested more than $200 million to increase access across the state. In November 2022, 67% of California voters supported a ballot measure enshrining abortion rights in the state Constitution. Newsom spent $100,000 from his campaign coffers to plant billboards in seven states with some of the nation's most restrictive laws: 'Need an abortion?' reads one billboard. 'California is here to help.' 'What you do in California sets the standard for everyone else,' Mini Timmaraju, national president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said at a 2022 fundraiser for Proposition 1 in San Francisco that Hillary Clinton attended. 'I want to take that package of legislation and this proposition and see it copied nationwide.' Ultimately, all those California laws and all that state funding weren't enough to keep the Mar Monte clinics open. They never could be as long as there isn't the national right to an abortion that Roe provided and as long as women's health clinics are reliant on federal funds to remain open. Planned Parenthood estimates that 200 clinics nationwide could close. To meet this reality, California needs a new 'West Coast offensive.' It needs to draw up a new 'road map for other states to stand up for women.' It would be best if clinics were funded privately, insulating them from partisan federal cuts. But that is harder now. California is the state with the most millionaires and billionaires. Now is the time for wealthy individuals and foundations to stand up and backfill these losses so clinics can continue to provide access to women's health care. But will those individuals step forward? Or will they be cowed like the wealthy law firms and Ivy League universities that have bowed to Trump's intimidation? Even if they do step up, is there enough private money in California to keep federally funded women's health clinics open until Democrats regain control of at least one lever of power in Washington and can curb his fascistic policies? That possibility looks bleak. For starters, it would probably require hundreds of millions of dollars, said Shannon Olivieri Hovis, former NARAL Pro-Choice California director who is now vice president of public affairs at Essential Access Health. 'I think the honest answer is, we don't know yet. We're talking about a huge hole.' Theresa Cheng, a professor of emergency medicine at UCSF and a member of the school's Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, said it will be difficult for the private sector to patch up all the new holes punctured in the social safety net by the Trump administration. 'That's going to be really difficult because the Trump administration has cut so broadly in so many social systems,' said Cheng, who is in touch with private donors through her work with several nonprofit organizations. 'Food insecurity. Homelessness. Immigration. There are a lot of needs out there now.' Relying on private donations isn't going to help clinics across California's chasm of wealth inequality, Ziegler said. 'If you're depending partly on individual donors, that's going to look very different in Beverly Hills or Marin County than it is in Gilroy or other areas where there are few people to give private donations,' Ziegler said. Until political change happens in Washington, Cheng urged Californians to 'stay stalwart in protecting reproductive health. So much of this will have to be settled out in the courts. That will at least buy us some more time.'


Time Business News
20 hours ago
- Time Business News
BrainSim-X Launches Developer Platform for Neural Simulation Data
BrainSim-X announced the launch of a developer access program that allows researchers and app developers to integrate brain simulation data into their applications. More information about the platform is available at their official website . The Bangalore-based research initiative said the platform will focus on medical applications, particularly epilepsy research and neurological treatment development. Unlike typical API services, BrainSim-X requires developers to submit applications explaining their intended use cases before gaining access to the platform. Interested developers can request API credentials through their secure portal. The approval process takes approximately one week, with the organization reviewing each application to ensure it aligns with their medical research focus. One developer who has used the platform for three months described it as providing detailed neural activity data that requires significant technical expertise to implement properly. A detailed account of this developer's experience can be found in their comprehensive review . 'The platform generates large amounts of data that require powerful computing resources,' the developer said. 'It's designed for serious medical research rather than general app development.' The organization provides documentation and support for developers working on brain-computer interfaces, neuroscience research projects, and medical applications. Their research findings are available for review in published papers. Real-time data access became available recently, allowing developers to integrate live neural simulation feeds into their applications. The platform is intended for researchers studying brain activity patterns, testing neurological treatments, and developing diagnostic tools. BrainSim-X operates the service through a secure API that provides access to neural simulation data generated by their brain modeling platform. Technical requirements include high-memory computing systems capable of processing large neural datasets. Additional technical insights about the platform's capabilities can be found in this technical analysis . The research initiative says the developer program represents part of their commitment to making brain simulation technology accessible to the global research community. Applications are evaluated based on their potential contribution to medical research and neurological treatment development. BrainSim-X has not disclosed revenue generated from the developer platform, stating that funds support ongoing research activities. The organization expects demand for the platform to grow as more researchers learn about neural simulation applications in medical research. Future platform updates will include enhanced simulation capabilities and additional tools for analyzing neural activity patterns. BrainSim-X says the developer program differentiates it from commercial AI companies by focusing on open research collaboration rather than proprietary technology development. The platform supports research into cognitive enhancement, educational technology, and advanced diagnostic systems. Developers interested in accessing the platform must demonstrate relevant research experience and explain how they plan to use neural simulation data in their projects. BrainSim-X provides training resources to help developers understand neuroscience concepts necessary for effectively using the platform. The organization says it will continue expanding the developer program while maintaining focus on medical and scientific applications. Related Resources TIME BUSINESS NEWS