Human Life Protection Act — a complete ban on abortion beginning at fertilization that coordinates with the Supreme Court (is “triggered” and goes into effect when and to the extent the Court overturns Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.)
Ten states have passed essentially the same laws: Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah.
While at least ten states have passed “heartbeat” abortion bans, none is operative because each has been blocked by federal or state courts.
The Supreme Court has already conferenced (considered) a challenge to Mississippi’s ban on pre-viable abortions (beginning at 15 weeks) at least 15 times, but the Court has not announced whether it will grant or deny certiorari. The case is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392 (2020).
If the Court upholds the 15-week ban, a heartbeat ban, a complete abortion ban, or any other modification of Roe and Casey, the Human Life Protection Act would go into effect to that extent.
Enhance our state’s RU 486 safety regulations so that drug-induced abortions maintain adequate safety protections if the federal courts or the Biden Administration block the FDA’s regulations.
Drug-induced abortions (RU 486) are already the second most common method of abortion (40%).
Even under the best of circumstances, drug-induced abortions result in four times more complications for women than surgical abortions, according to a highly credible study published by the ACOG. If the FDA regulations — including the ban on mail-order abortions — are rendered inoperative by a federal court or by the Biden Administration Texas could see a huge spike in abortions and in complications from abortions.
⦁ Conscience protection for medical residents so they are not coerced into performing abortions as part of their training:
A. Notification that federal and state law allows residents the option to participate, as part of their training, in either elective abortion or alternative training.
B. Explicit “opt-in” to participate in elective abortions.
⦁ Fix last session’s SB 22 to fully implement the intent of the Legislature so that the City of Austin and other political subdivisions may not pay for “abortion services” (transportation, housing, child care, etc.) to help women obtain abortions at taxpayer expense.
The City of Austin has appropriated $150,000 and intends to appropriate another $400,000 to fund organizations that assist women (including minor girls) to obtain abortions but not funding the abortions. The grantees — Jane’s Due Process, Fund Texas Choice, and Mama Sana Vibrant Women — are not abortion providers or affiliates of abortion providers and are not excluded by SB 22.
⦁ Continue to fund the Alternatives to Abortion program at the current or increased rate ($40 M/year) in the biennial budget.
⦁ Maintain and improve the dispute resolution process in the Texas Advance Directives Act.
Texas Alliance for Life strongly supports maintaining and improving the dispute resolution process in the Texas Advance Directives Act, Chapter 166, Health and Safety Code.
- We support SB 1944 and HB 3099, which will further assure that patients and families have the maximum opportunity to transfer to an alternate provider when desired. HB 2943 assures that the patient’s intentions regarding DNR orders are implemented.
- We oppose SB 917 (Hughes) and HB 2609 (Parker), which gut the dispute resolution process.
- In 1999 the Texas Legislature unanimously passed and Gov. George W. Bush signed the Texas Advance Directives Act.
- This law balances the family’s autonomy regarding end-of-life medical decisions with a physician’s conscience right to not order medically inappropriate interventions to prolong a patient’s death that cause pain and suffering without a proportionate benefit.
- While rarely used, that law provides a process to resolve disputes regarding medical interventions for terminally ill patients.
- In rare cases when a dispute cannot be resolved, the law provides safe harbor from liability for the physician, but only after meeting at least 12 due process requirements, including attempting a transfer for at least 10 days. Only then can the physician have safe harbor from liability. SB 1944 and HB 3099 increase the time of the dispute resolution process from a minimum of 12 to a minimum of 21 days.
- The majority of states have a dispute resolution process that can result in safe harbor for a physician. The Texas Advance Directives Act has far more due process protections for patients and families than any other state law of its kind.