Abortion opponents laud bill that would clamp down on pill providers and out-of-state abortions
Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, authored Senate Bill 2880, which legal experts say is the most comprehensive attempt yet to stop Texans from accessing abortion pills or out-of-state abortions.
The bill would target online pill providers and tech companies that host abortion-related websites, and make it a felony, punishable by up to life in prison, to pay or reimburse the costs of an abortion, a direct hit on abortion funds, which help cover the costs of out-of-state abortions. It would also expand the ability of private citizens to bring wrongful death lawsuits against pill providers after an abortion and empower the attorney general's office to more easily prosecute abortion offenses.
By going after the internet service providers, social media sites and search engines that power these websites, Texas could potentially undermine the entire network of pills and providers serving abortion-ban states.
'Senate Bill 2880 is a big toolbox of policies for Texas to fight back against these websites,' said John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, during Thursday's hearing of the Senate State Affairs Committee. 'Texas will be leading other states on how we can fight this concerning trend.'
A large body of research has shown abortion drug mifepristone, first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2000, to be safe and effective. But anti-abortion groups have been actively pushing to get the medications restricted or even moved off the market through lawsuits and legislation.
Anti-abortion groups told lawmakers during the hearing that pregnant people in Texas are receiving pills such as mifepristone and misoprostol in the mail without any information about how to take them, or guidelines on follow-up care. Providers shared stories about women hemorrhaging at home or struggling to dispose of the remains of an aborted fetus.
'I see women suffering daily from the effects of incomplete chemical abortions,' said Whitney Freeman, director of medical services at Prestonwood Pregnancy Center in the Dallas area.
Freeman said sometimes women receive pills in the mail with no medical instructions, or with instructions in a foreign language such as Russian. Patients are told not to tell medical providers that they are in the process of a chemical abortion, which can then prevent them from receiving the care they need, Freeman said
SB 2880, called the Woman and Child Protection Act, would allow private citizens to sue for up to $100,000 per violation of the law. This is an escalation of the legal framework that allowed Texas to ban nearly all abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy in 2021.
Critics of the bill told lawmakers on Thursday that the legislation demonstrates government overreach and would infringe upon constitutional free speech.
Austin Kaplan, an Austin attorney who sued over the 2021 law, told The Texas Tribune that it was inevitable that lawmakers would keep pushing to expand the use of this private enforcement mechanism. He said this bill, as written, would likely be challenged in court, although he noted that hasn't stopped Texas lawmakers before.
'Looking at this, it looks just completely impossible,' he said. 'But what's the penalty for the Legislature? The legislator gets reelected. They don't pay out of pocket for this litigation.'
The committee also signaled its support of a priority bill for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, which would prohibit cities and counties from using taxpayer dollars to pay for out-of-state abortions and travel. Senate Bill 33 targets Austin and San Antonio, which have designated $400,000 and $500,000, respectively, to assist residents with costs associated with navigating abortion bans.
State law already prevents taxpayer funds from being used to pay for abortions, but some cities have 'worked to exploit a loophole,' said bill author Sen. Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels, by using taxpayer funds to pay for travel accommodations, child care and other expenses women incur when they seek out-of-state abortions.
'We have so many things we need to be spending our taxpayer dollars on,' said San Antonio City Council Member Marc Whyte, who testified in favor of the bill. 'Not once have I heard the residents of San Antonio saying they want their tax dollars spent on sending women to other states to receive abortions.'
Under SB 33, the attorney general or any Texas resident could bring a civil legal action against cities that misuse funds by paying to facilitate abortions.
We can't wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas' breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more.
Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025.
TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans plan to use threat of third Trump impeachment as key issue to boost their standing in midterm races
Republican strategists say they plan to make a major midterm talking point from the threat of a third impeachment against Donald Trump that could come if Democrats retake the House. 'We know what the stakes are in the midterm elections,' John McLaughlin, a Trump pollster, told NBC News. 'If we don't succeed, Democrats will begin persecuting President Trump again. They would go for impeachment.' Right now, Republicans hold an eight-seat advantage in the House, walling the president off from a third impeachment, but that could change if the Democrats surge in 2026, as the president's party typically suffers during midterm elections. Still, according to Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., who led the party's second impeachment against Trump over the January 6 insurrection, the Democrats themselves plan to focus more on what they see as the president's 'terrible agenda.' 'We've already impeached him twice,' Raskin told NBC. 'So obviously that's not a complete solution, given that he is able to beat the two-thirds constitutional spread. So I don't think anybody thinks that's going to be the utopian solution to our problems.' Both House impeachments — first for an alleged offer of quid pro quo with Ukraine to go after Joe Biden, then for the Capitol riot — did not have enough votes to secure convictions in the Senate. During the second Trump administration, the president has continued to face attempts to initiate new impeachment trials, including from Michigan Democrat Shri Thanedar in the spring and a June effort over the administration's Iran strikes, though none of these have come to pass. Impeachments may not be coming any time soon, but Republicans face a variety of other risks to their three-party majority control of the federal government. The president's job approval rating has dipped to 37 percent, according to Gallup, the lowest of this term and just above Trump's lowest-ever approval rating, driven by hemorrhaging support from independent voters. A majority of Americans also oppose his signature One Big, Beautiful Bill, which contains a series of tax cuts and restrictions on social programs like Medicaid. The party also continues to face fallout and internal division over the White House's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files scandal, in which Trump and his allies campaigned on releasing materials related to the notorious financier's sexual misconduct, only to backtrack as more information concerning Epstein and Trump's long-time friendship came to light. The president has lashed out at his own base for seeking information about the scandal, which he calls a Democratic 'hoax,' while House Speaker Mike Johnson effectively ended business in the lower house until after its upcoming summer recess to avoid Democratic amendments calling for the release of the files. Meanwhile, former White House ally (and GOP mega-donor) Elon Musk has vowed to form his own political party, in the face of disagreements with the Trump administration over spending policy and the Epstein saga. There could also be blowback to economic conditions if the Trump administration's repeatedly delayed double-digit tariffs take full effect on major U.S. trading partners.
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
US-EU trade deal wards off further escalation but will raise costs for companies, consumers
FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen have announced a sweeping trade deal that imposes 15% tariffs on most European goods, warding off Trump's threat of a 30% rate if no deal had been reached by Aug. 1. The tariffs, or import taxes, paid when Americans buy European products could raise prices for U.S. consumers and dent profits for European companies and their partners who bring goods into the country. Here are some things to know about the trade deal between the United States and the European Union: What's in the agreement? Trump and von der Leyen's announcement, made during Trump's visit to one of his golf courses in Scotland, leaves many details to be filled in. The headline figure is a 15% tariff rate on 'the vast majority' of European goods brought into the U.S., including cars, computer chips and pharmaceuticals. It's lower than the 20% Trump initially proposed, and lower than his threats of 50% and then 30%. Von der Leyen said the two sides agreed on zero tariffs on both sides for a range of 'strategic' goods: Aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, semiconductor equipment, certain agricultural products, and some natural resources and critical raw materials. Specifics were lacking. She said the two sides 'would keep working' to add more products to the list. Additionally, the EU side would purchase what Trump said was $750 billion (638 billion euros) worth of natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel to replace Russian energy supplies, and Europeans would invest an additional $600 billion (511 billion euros) in the U.S. What's not in the deal? Trump said the 50% U.S. tariff on imported steel would remain; von der Leyen said the two sides agreed to further negotiations to fight a global steel glut, reduce tariffs and establish import quotas — that is, set amounts that can be imported, often at a lower rate. Trump said pharmaceuticals were not included in the deal. Von der Leyen said the pharmaceuticals issue was 'on a separate sheet of paper' from Sunday's deal. Where the $600 billion for additional investment would come from was not specified. And von der Leyen said that when it came to farm products, the EU side made clear that 'there were tariffs that could not be lowered,' without specifying which products. What's the impact? The 15% rate removes Trump's threat of a 30% tariff. It's still much higher than the average tariff before Trump came into office of around 1%, and higher than Trump's minimum 10% baseline tariff. Higher tariffs, or import taxes, on European goods mean sellers in the U.S. would have to either increase prices for consumers — risking loss of market share — or swallow the added cost in terms of lower profits. The higher tariffs are expected to hurt export earnings for European firms and slow the economy. The 10% baseline applied while the deal was negotiated was already sufficiently high to make the European Union's executive commission cut its growth forecast for this year from 1.3% to 0.9%. Von der Leyen said the 15% rate was 'the best we could do' and credited the deal with maintaining access to the U.S. market and providing 'stability and predictability for companies on both sides.' What is some of the reaction to the deal? German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal which avoided 'an unnecessary escalation in transatlantic trade relations' and said that 'we were able to preserve our core interests,' while adding that 'I would have very much wished for further relief in transatlantic trade.' The Federation of German Industries was blunter. 'Even a 15% tariff rate will have immense negative effects on export-oriented German industry,' said Wolfgang Niedermark, a member of the federation's leadership. While the rate is lower than threatened, 'the big caveat to today's deal is that there is nothing on paper, yet,' said Carsten Brzeski, global chief of macro at ING bank. 'With this disclaimer in mind and at face value, today's agreement would clearly bring an end to the uncertainty of recent months. An escalation of the US-EU trade tensions would have been a severe risk for the global economy,' Brzeski said. 'This risk seems to have been avoided.' What about car companies? Asked if European carmakers could still sell cars at 15%, von der Leyen said the rate was much lower than the current 27.5%. That has been the rate under Trump's 25% tariff on cars from all countries, plus the preexisting U.S. car tariff of 2.5%. The impact is likely to be substantial on some companies, given that automaker Volkswagen said it suffered a 1.3 billion euro ($1.5 billion) hit to profit in the first half of the year from the higher tariffs. Mercedes-Benz dealers in the U.S. have said they are holding the line on 2025 model year prices 'until further notice.' The German automaker has a partial tariff shield because it makes 35% of the Mercedes-Benz vehicles sold in the U.S. in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, but the company said it expects prices to undergo 'significant increases' in coming years. What were the issues dividing the two sides? Before Trump returned to office, the U.S. and the EU maintained generally low tariff levels in what is the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world, with some 1.7 trillion euros ($2 trillion) in annual trade. Together the U.S. and the EU have 44% of the global economy. The U.S. rate averaged 1.47% for European goods, while the EU's averaged 1.35% for American products, according to the Bruegel think tank in Brussels. Trump has complained about the EU's 198 billion-euro trade surplus in goods, which shows Americans buy more from European businesses than the other way around, and has said the European market is not open enough for U.S.-made cars. However, American companies fill some of the trade gap by outselling the EU when it comes to services such as cloud computing, travel bookings, and legal and financial services. And some 30% of European imports are from American-owned companies, according to the European Central Bank.
Axios
4 hours ago
- Axios
EU trade deal with Trump helps Europe ditch Russian fuels
The new trade deal that President Trump unveiled with the European Union includes a European pledge to buy $750 billion worth of U.S. energy. Why it matters: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said it will help the bloc further wean itself off Russian gas. The $750 billion is spread across three years, she told reporters in Scotland on Sunday. The big picture:"We still have too much Russian LNG that is coming through the back door ... to our European Union," von der Leyen said, and also cited some continued oil shipments. "We want to absolutely get rid of Russian fossil fuels, and therefore it is much welcome to purchase the more affordable and better LNG from the United States," she said. EU pipeline imports of gas from Russia, once its dominant supplier, have fallen greatly. But imports of Russian LNG remain substantial. What we're watching: EU members' purchases of U.S. LNG and oil have risen sharply since Russia invaded Ukraine. And European energy companies have already been signing deals for future LNG volumes from U.S. projects that are planned or already under construction. The bottom line: Details are lacking. The big question is how much this increases purchases that would have occurred anyway. ClearView Energy Partners, in a note, said that even if the $250B annually includes existing U.S. energy exports to the EU of roughly $78B per year, it would still be a big jump. The total "would far outstrip" U.S. energy purchases in Trump's "phase one" deal with China, ClearView said.
