Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Texas has enforced some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the United States, and therefore in the Western world.
By enacting a near-total ban that only allows abortions to save the life of the mother, Texas joined ranks with about 40 generally volatile countries worldwide including Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, and Myanmar. (That’s according to abortion ban tracking by the Center for Reproductive Rights, on whose website you can check out an interactive map that will make you wonder if Texas exactly counts as part of the “developed world.”)
When Roe first fell, members of the Texas Legislature talked about compromising in the 2023 legislative session. Polling showed 80% of Texans supported abortion in cases of rape and incest, and some Republicans said they’d support an exception to the ban in those cases. But then, compromise didn’t happen. Three years later, the state still hasn’t budged by adding exceptions to the ban.
With the 89th legislative session over, the state has mostly found ways to make terminating a pregnancy even more difficult. Here’s what the Legislature accomplished.
Don’t Kill Pregnant Women But Maybe Do Prosecute Them
The Life of the Mother Act aims to clarify when doctors can provide lifesaving abortions. It followed repeated reports that, due to our current ban’s vague language, doctors are not sure how close to death a woman must be before an abortion becomes legal. The new law clarifies that a physician does not need to “delay, alter, or withhold” an abortion if that slowdown would make death or bodily impairment more likely.
“We do not want women to die.” – Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth
“We do not want women to die,” said bill sponsor Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth. But he pointed out that under the edited law, a doctor who provides a non-lifesaving abortion would still face up to 99 years in prison and “they would deserve it.”
Some abortion advocates warned of a critical catch in the clarification: It’s clear under current law that providing an abortion is almost always illegal. What’s foggy is whether receiving an abortion could be illegal. So far, Texas women have died after doctors withheld abortion as treatment, but women have not been criminalized for receiving abortions.
However, an early 20th-century Texas abortion ban appears to leave open the possibility of prosecuting the patient. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and some conservative lawmakers argue that this 1925 law is already enforceable, and has been since Roe was overturned. As the Texas Supreme Court is still untangling that issue, some advocates for abortion access worried SB 31 would revive the old ban by clarifying that very law. Sen. Carol Alvarado, D-Houston, said of a similar bill this spring, “This is a backdoor effort to fully reinstate the 1925 law.”
But some legal experts say the enforceability of the 1925 law really depends on legal precedent, not SB 31. UT-Austin law professor Elizabeth Sepper told The Texas Tribune that the Texas GOP already believes the ban is valid. As she put it: “I don’t see this as a meaningful step to change the status of that law.”
Still, advocates aren’t happy with the clarification. “It does nothing to address the real harm these bans cause,” says a letter signed by the ACLU of Texas and multiple abortion funds (nonprofits that help pregnant people abort). “Critically, the bill still lacks a clear and explicit exemption protecting pregnant people from prosecution.”
Put a Statue of Unborn Baby Jesus on the Capitol Grounds
The same day that the Life of the Mother Act passed the House, the Legislature sent a resolution to the governor’s desk that will place a pro-life statue of unborn baby Jesus on the grounds of the Texas Capitol.
It depicts the Virgin Mary (or, as the Legislature says, “a mother”) with an embryonic Jesus (“unborn child”) in what looks like a steel surgical bowl (“world-shaped womb”). The artist, Timothy Schmalz, says it depicts a universal message about the beauty of life. When the Chronicle asked if the statue was meant to ask the question “What if Jesus was aborted?” he said, “Actually, that didn’t cross my mind at all. … But you know what they say: that a good piece of work finds its own symbols and people can interpret it in different ways.”
Don’t Even Say the Word “Abortion”
Senate Bill 1388, which awaits the governor’s signature, will prevent state-funded crisis pregnancy centers from so much as mentioning that abortions exist. As Texas has the largest uninsured population of any U.S. state, these centers (a continuation of the “alternatives to abortion” program) can provide crucial health care services including Pap smears and STI testing. However, they cannot, under the new law, “provide, refer patients to, advocate for, or promote abortion services” in any way.
The law is comprehensive. Under it, these centers can’t contract with any organization that helps people get abortions, and they cannot employ nurses, doctors, or any other staff member who also works for an entity that provides abortions. They also can’t display information about – or logos belonging to – abortion providers. The law requires that any contractor or servicer working within the program must affirm in writing each year that they are pro-life, and that they are “not involved in activities contradicting the program’s objective of offering an alternative to abortion.”
Don’t Spend Taxpayer Dollars on Fleeing Texas to Abort
In response to the state’s extreme abortion ban, Austin and San Antonio’s progressive elected leaders created programs to help pregnant people afford travel, child care, and hotel expenses when they seek an abortion in a non-prohibition state.
That won’t work now. SB 33 blocks local governments from funding abortion-related practical support. But abortion advocates point out that the bill could’ve been a lot broader. The final version will still allow local governments to fund access to Plan B, birth control, and hotlines offering abortion information.
Pill-Blocking Bills That Won’t Become Law (Yet)
A couple of bills that would have banned and tracked the use of abortion pills didn’t make it across the finish line, but they might indicate what abortion legislation will reappear in the 2027 legislative session. SB 2880 would have allowed lawsuits against anyone making, prescribing, or mailing abortion pills. It would have also altered the wrongful death statute and allowed the attorney general to sue on behalf of “unborn children.”
Another failed bill, SB 1976, would have monitored wastewater for a handful of pharmaceuticals, including the abortion drug mifepristone. The Dallas Morning News talked to a wastewater researcher who didn’t “see a scientific reason to be specifically concerned about mifepristone in the water supply.” Bill author Sen. Bryan Hughes, who also authored the pill-banning SB 2880, said of the mifepristone monitoring bill: “It’s about water quality.”
This article appears in June 6 • 2025.
