By: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/13/texas-ivf-treatments/?fbclid=IwAR3Wqzr_KDJalB210sBJZayqmjVx4s4LniV2uqCg4EMFMONv_0cWDxk2AUQ

Two of Texas’ most well-known anti-abortion groups — Texas Alliance for Life and Texas Right to Life — also say the state’s laws and more recent definition of abortion should not affect or inhibit IVF treatment, even if they include the term embryo.

“Abortion is, according to Texas law, causing the death of the child, who is a child of a woman known to be pregnant,” John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, said pointing to a statute the Legislature amended a few years ago outlining what counts as an abortion.

“There’s also no such thing as an abortion outside of a woman’s womb, so when you look at what’s happening in the laboratory with assisted reproductive technology, that is not destruction of an embryo,” he added.

This language likely leaves IVF treatment intact, legal scholars told the Tribune. A district attorney could decide to try to test the issue by bringing a case against a fertility doctor, said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. But he added that challenging IVF doesn’t appear to be an area “ripe” for action in the anti-abortion movement.

Seago said Texas Right to Life has concerns about the “destruction” of “excessive” embryos, particularly in medical research, but the issue is not one of its priorities for Texas’ 2023 legislative session. Instead, its priorities include enforcing existing laws against abortion and providing more support for pregnant women.

Amy O’Donnell, a spokesperson for the Texas Alliance for Life, said the group had not finalized its legislative priorities yet, but said the group supported a law passed in 2017 requiring the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services to post information on its website about embryo donations to other people to promote the option.

For half a century, abortion rights were rooted in the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War to guarantee equal rights to all after slavery. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a right to abortion, critics say women could once again be forced to reproduce — as were slaves. VOA’s Veronica Balderas Iglesias examines the argument. Warning: This piece contains video that some may find offensive. Videographer and video editor: Veronica Balderas Iglesias

By: Justin Boggs

Texas penal code recognizes an unborn child as a person, but traffic laws do not. Amy O’Donnell, a spokeswoman for Texas Alliance for Life, an anti-abortion group, told the Dallas Morning News.

“And a child residing in a mother’s womb is not taking up an extra seat. And with only one occupant taking up a seat, the car did not meet the criteria needed to drive in that lane,” O’Donnell said.

By: Camille Fine

Amy O’Donnell, spokesperson for the anti-abortion group Texas Alliance for Life, said that while the Texas penal does recognize an unborn child as a person, the Texas Transportation Code does not.

“A child residing in a mother’s womb is not taking up an extra seat. And with only one occupant taking up a seat, the car did not meet the criteria needed to drive in that lane,” O’Donnell told the Dallas Morning News.

By: stabahriti@insider.com (Sam Tabahriti)

Amy O’Donnell, a spokeswoman for Texas Alliance for Life, told the Dallas Morning News: “While the penal code in Texas recognizes an unborn child as a person in our state, the Texas transportation code does not specify the same. And a child residing in a mother’s womb is not taking up an extra seat. And with only one occupant taking up a seat, the car did not meet the criteria needed to drive in that lane.”

By: Dave Lieber

I asked Amy O’Donnell, spokeswoman for Texas Alliance for Life, an anti-abortion group, what she thought of this unusual situation.

She replied, “While the penal code in Texas recognizes an unborn child as a person in our state, the Texas Transportation Code does not specify the same. And a child residing in a mother’s womb is not taking up an extra seat. And with only one occupant taking up a seat, the car did not meet the criteria needed to drive in that lane.”