Texas lawmakers consider bipartisan bill aimed at clarifying exceptions to state's abortion restrictions
The state has a near-total abortion ban, but doctors, using reasonable medical judgment, are permitted to take action in cases where a pregnant woman faces a life-threatening physical condition or substantial impairment of major bodily function.
Now, the state legislature is seeking to pass a measure to clarify how narrow that exception is, which will give doctors a more clear idea of when they can intervene in situations where there are pregnancy complications.
House Bill 44 and Senate Bill 31 are matching bills that have each been introduced in their respective chambers, with the Texas House Public Health Committee hearing testimony on Monday regarding the version in the lower chamber.
Pro-life Activist Assaulted, Bloodied During Street Interview About Abortion
"This is not someone who is six weeks and driving to Planned Parenthood because they don't want their baby," Catholic Conference of Bishops executive director Jennifer Alman said, according to FOX 4.
Read On The Fox News App
"This is a woman who very much wants her baby at 20 weeks and having a medical emergency where she has lost her child," Alman continued. "Even if it's not fully dead yet, her child is in the act of dying and the only way she can survive to parent her other children is to accept that death, protect her life and that is what the bill seeks to strike a balance of."
The legislation, also called the Life of the Mother Act in both chambers, has brought together major pro-life groups, doctors, hospitals, Republicans and Democrats, said GOP Rep. Charlie Green, who authored the House version.
"We know women's bodies have been horribly injured because doctors and hospitals are afraid to provide abortions that could save their bodies," Green said, according to FOX 4. "That's because some of the language in our current law is not clear to doctors and hospitals."
Supreme Court Divided Over State Effort To Defund Planned Parenthood
The lack of exceptions under Texas' abortion ban prompted a lawsuit brought by 20 women, according to FOX 4, though it was rejected by the state Supreme Court. The court also called on the Texas Medical Board to provide clarity for doctors on when an abortion may be permitted under state law.
The medical board said its job is not to clarify the law, sending the issue back to lawmakers, the outlet reported.
Some who testified expressed concerns that the legislation would allow a loophole in the abortion ban.
On the other side, some of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue the bill does not go far enough since it does not take into account fatal abnormalities of the fetus.
Sarah Harrison said she was pregnant with twins when one of them had a fatal condition, according to FOX 4.
"What if I got pregnant with twins again and I have to leave again? The trauma is real. It is real. It's intense. Of course, I feel scared to get pregnant in this state," she testified.
Rep. Ann Johnson, a Democrat, said: "This bill does not include fetal abnormality. It does not include rape. But it does include a bipartisan approach to try to address the challenges."
"I heard you guys say not sick enough. This bill does an important thing that does say you do not delay treatment. This bill does try to address that delay in time," she continued.
The legislation appears to have enough support for approval.Original article source: Texas lawmakers consider bipartisan bill aimed at clarifying exceptions to state's abortion restrictions
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate Democrats call for probe into DOJ settlement over Hewlett Packard-Juniper merger
Several Senate Democrats are calling for an investigation into the Department of Justice's (DOJ) decision to settle a lawsuit blocking Hewlett Packard Enterprise's (HPE) $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks. Democratic Sens. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) raised concerns to the DOJ inspector general Friday about the circumstances surrounding the proposed settlement. Two top officials in the agency's antitrust division — Roger Alford, principal deputy assistant attorney general, and Bill Rinner, deputy assistant attorney general and head of merger enforcement — were recently fired for insubordination. The firings reportedly followed internal disagreements over merger policy, in which Attorney General Pam Bondi's chief of staff overruled the antitrust division's head, Gail Slater, to approve the HPE-Juniper settlement. 'In all, these events reflect a concerning pattern of behavior within the DOJ and point to possible politicization of the process by which the DOJ analyzes proposed mergers and acquisitions, as well as undertakes and resolves enforcement actions,' the senators wrote in a letter to acting DOJ Inspector General William Blier. 'We are concerned that, in addition to improper interference in the enforcement of our laws, the full extent and parties involved in this coercive campaign are not known and that other improper conduct could have occurred,' they continued. The Justice Department sued to block the merger between the nation's second- and third-largest wireless network providers in January, shortly after President Trump took office. The lawsuit marked a key point of continuity with the Biden administration, which had been preparing to challenge the merger. HPE and Juniper pushed back on the lawsuit at the time, arguing the DOJ's analysis was 'fundamentally flawed' and the merger would allow the companies to 'more effectively compete with global incumbents.' In late June, the agency announced a settlement, allowing the acquisition to go forward as long as HPE divests its division for small and medium businesses and licenses Juniper's software to independent competitors. Axios reported Wednesday that the U.S. intelligence community weighed in on the lawsuit, urging the DOJ to allow the merger to proceed to boost American companies competing with China's Huawei. The senators argued the settlement fails to address the issues raised in the DOJ's initial lawsuit, which suggested the merger would essentially result in a duopoly in the market between HPE-Juniper and Cisco. They also underscored HPE's reported decision to hire lobbyists with close ties to the Trump administration, as well as the subsequent firings of antitrust officials. The same four senators raised concerns to Hewlett Packard president and CEO Enrique Lores in a separate letter Friday about what they described as the company's 'hiring of political consultants in an apparent attempt to assert undue influence, if not coercion' to settle the DOJ lawsuit. 'HPE's hiring of these consultant close to the Trump family and White House creates the appearance that it sought to use outside political pressure and retaliation against the Antitrust Division to end its lawsuit and reporting suggests that the full scope of HPE's consultants or influence campaign has not been disclosed,' they wrote. They pressed the company for information about the consultants, the nature of their work and any discussions they had with the DOJ's antitrust division or members of the Trump family. HPE spokesperson Adam Bauer said in a statement that the company is confident the Juniper acquisition is 'in the public interest and will promote further competition' in the market. 'The transaction was appropriately approved with certain remedies by the U.S. Department of Justice, and it was unconditionally approved by 13 other antitrust regulators around the world,' Bauer added. 'We respect the role our regulators play in maintaining competitive markets and appreciate the professional and constructive way in which the DOJ engaged with us in approving the deal.'
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Most adults do not plan on getting COVID-19 shot amid vaccine policy changes
More than half of American adults — 59 percent — say they do not expect to get the COVID-19 booster shot this autumn, according to new poll findings from healthcare policy group KFF. Poll results show that 23 percent of U.S. adults say they will 'probably not' get the vaccine, while 37 percent will 'definitely not' get the shot. Americans who said they will 'probably' or 'definitely' not get the shot were also more likely to say they think changes to U.S. vaccine policy are 'major' and will make people less safe. The data comes as the Trump administration makes drastic changes to the country's vaccine policy. Secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced earlier this year that the COVID-19 shot will no longer be recommended for healthy children and pregnant women. Kennedy also abruptly fired all 17 members of an independent vaccine advisory panel for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in June. He then replaced the panel with eight hand-picked appointees, many of whom have expressed vaccine skepticism in the past. Adults who identify as Republicans are far less likely to plan on getting the vaccine compared to those who identify as Democrats. About six out of 10 Republicans said they would 'definitely not' get the shot compared to about one out of 10 Democrats, according to the poll. White adults are the most likely to say that they are against getting the vaccine once the colder months arrive with about four out of 10 admitting they will 'definitely not' get the shot. Meanwhile, 32 percent of Black adults say they will 'definitely not' get the COVID-19 vaccine this fall, along with 30 percent of adults who identify as Hispanic. Adults between the ages of 30 and 49 are the most likely to say that they do not plan on getting the vaccine, with 42 percent of that age group saying they will 'definitely not' get the shot in the fall. The U.S. appears to be experiencing another summer wave of COVID-19 cases. As of July 29, COVID-19 infections are growing or likely growing in 40 states, including Florida, Texas, and New York, according to the CDC. The KFF poll was conducted via a national representative survey of about 1,300 people between July 8-14.
San Francisco Chronicle
28 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Lawyer says he's not been allowed to see 5 immigrants deported by the US to a prison in Eswatini
MANZINI, Eswatini (AP) — Five immigrants deported by the United States to Eswatini in a secret deal last month had served their criminal sentences before they were sent to be held in a prison in the African country, a lawyer working on their cases said Friday. The Eswatini lawyer also said the men from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen and Vietnam sent to southern Africa under President Donald Trump's third-country deportation program have been denied access to legal representation while being held in Eswatini's main maximum-security prison. The lawyer, Sibusiso Nhlabatsi, said he hasn't been allowed to see the men and that he filed court papers Thursday against the head of Eswatini's correctional services department and the country's attorney general, demanding access to them. He said he is representing them on behalf of lawyers in the U.S. and was prevented from seeing them by Eswatini prison officials on July 25. It's unlawful for the men, who have been in Eswatini for around two weeks, to be denied access to a lawyer, he added. The Eswatini government has said the men will be held in solitary confinement until they can be deported to their home countries, which could take up to a year. 'They have served their sentences,' Nhlabatsi told The Associated Press. 'If a person has committed a crime and they have served a sentence, why are you then keeping them in a prison?' Nhlabatsi said the men have not been able to communicate with their families or receive visitors since arriving in Eswatini, although prison officials said they were in the process of setting up devices to allow them to speak with their families. He alleged their ongoing detention could have legal implications for Eswatini, a small country bordering South Africa and one of the world's last absolute monarchies, ruled by a king accused of cracking down on dissent. The Trump administration has come under scrutiny for its choice of African countries to strike deportation deals with. It deported eight immigrants described as violent criminals to South Sudan in early July in an operation that was halted by a legal challenge in the U.S. The eight were held for weeks in a converted shipping container at an American military base in nearby Djibouti while the case was decided. A Supreme Court ruling eventually cleared the way for them to be sent to South Sudan. Both South Sudan, which is in danger of tipping into civil war, and Eswatini have poor rights records and governments accused of being repressive. Critics say the deportees, who the administration says were in the U.S. illegally, will likely be denied due process in those countries. The five sent to Eswatini were also described by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as serious criminals. Their convictions included murder and child rape, the department said in social media posts, calling them 'uniquely barbaric." The department, which did not say if they had completed their sentences, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday. An Eswatini government spokesman also declined to comment on Nhlabatsi's allegations, saying it was now a matter for the courts. Nhlabatsi said the deportees are being held at the Matsapha Correctional Complex near the administrative capital, Mbabane, the same prison said to hold pro-democracy activists on trumped up charges. The government has declined to say where the five men are being held, citing security concerns. Eswatini's statement about the five men ultimately being deported to their home countries appears to contradict claims by the U.S. that their home countries refused to take the men back. ___
