By: Allie Kelly

Attorney General Ken Paxton and Texas Medical Board Executive Director Stephen Brint Carlton are named defendants in the case. The offices of Paxton and Brint Carlton did not respond to a request for comment.

Paxton has previously said he will continue to defend “the pro-life laws of Texas and the lives of all unborn children.”

The Texas Alliance for Life, a statewide anti-abortion organization, responded to the Zurawski case when it was filed in March via a public statement.
The organization said Texas law is “carefully crafted” to allow doctors to treat pregnant people with life-threatening conditions without risk of criminal or civil liability.

“Texas Alliance for Life supports clarification of the medical emergency exception language within Texas’ pro-life laws,” the Alliance for Life said in the statement. “That clarification needs to come in the same way doctors are educated about other legislation affecting their practice in Texas.”

By: Rosie Nguyen

“I can’t help but reflect with joy on this decision that allowed Texas to protect life beginning at conception. Outside of emergency medical exceptions, the number of abortions in Texas has dropped down to zero. We absolutely believe that it’s saving lives. We celebrate every life that has been saved in Texas as a result of our pro-life laws,” Amy O’Donnell, communications director at Texas Alliance for Life, said.

She said her organization works with pregnancy centers across the state that provide support and assistance for women who choose to move forward with their pregnancy and give birth to their children.

“One thing we have worked on, which is really no different than what we’ve focused on in the past, is to educate Texans about the vast resources that Texas offers women. There’s resources to specifically help low-income women and women facing unplanned pregnancies,” O’Donnell, said. “We believe in the value of protecting lives conceived even in rape or babies diagnosed with disabilities in their mother’s wombs.”

O’Donnell believes the language in the Human Life Protection Act is clear when it comes to the exceptions that can be made for abortions, but acknowledges there could be more clarification on the law.

By: GILBERT GARCIA

Let’s put aside, for a moment, the fact that most of Prop A is likely to be disregarded by our municipal government if it passes, because City Attorney Andy Segovia says the justice-director provision is the only piece of it that doesn’t violate state law.

Let’s also put aside, for a moment, the fact that if Prop A passes, its abortion-decriminalization provision will be challenged in court by Texas Alliance for Life, an Austin-based anti-abortion group.

Let’s pretend that voters approve Prop A and the city actually implements it. What would that mean for San Antonians? In truth, much would remain the same.

No one is currently getting arrested in this city for providing or receiving an abortion. That wouldn’t change.

By: Michael Karlis

Although the petition filed by Texas Alliance for Life garnered support from state GOP members, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the state’s highest court ultimately ruled that it doesn’t have the power to “stymie” an election. Further litigation would only be appropriate if the measure passes, the justices added.

“The power of initiative is reserved to the people, not granted to them,” Justice Jane N. Bland wrote in her opinion. “Courts must not lightly usurp that power. Our role is to facilitate elections, not to stymie them, and to review the consequences of those elections as the Legislature prescribes.”