“We applaud the swift action of the Texas Attorney General’s office to defend Texas law, which protects the lives of unborn babies while allowing abortions in rare cases when abortion is necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life,” said Texas Alliance for Life Communications Director Amy O’Donnell. “While Texas law is clear, we believe that some doctors are not apprised of the actual language of the law, resulting in poor care for their patients. Professional organizations like the Texas Medical Association, ACOG, and the Texas Medical Board, are the proper sources of guidance and rules for physicians, not the courts. Judicial activism from the bench using non-medically defined terms opens the door for greater confusion.”

In August 2022, the Human Life Protection Act went into effect, protecting unborn babies from abortion beginning at conception. That law allows a physician to perform an abortion to save a mother’s life, when “in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female . . . has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced.”

By: Allie Kelly

Amy O’Donnell, communications director for Texas Alliance For Life, said her organization has been following the Zurawski case closely. The Alliance supports a “life-threatening” exemption to state abortion laws, but believes the language in abortion bans is clear.
O’Donnell said many doctors and pregnant people misunderstand Texas law. She said the women in the Zurawski case received suboptimal medical care.

“We’ll continue to work to maintain our laws, to keep them strong, to not allow any weakening exceptions and to work against any legislation or judicial activism that would try to rewrite our laws in a way that does not protect life,” she said.

By: Ali Linan

Texas Alliance for Life, a pro-life organization, said the injunction “opens the door to confusion about the clearly-worded exception language to allow abortions when a pregnancy endangers a mother’s life.”

“While Texas law is clear, we believe that some doctors are not apprised of the actual language of the law, resulting in poor care for their patients,” Texas Alliance for Life Communications Director Amy O’Donnell said. “Professional organizations like the Texas Medical Association, ACOG, and the Texas Medical Board, are the proper sources of guidance and rules for physicians, not the courts.”

By: David Montgomery

Joe Pojman, founder and executive director of the Texas Alliance for Life, one of the state’s leading anti-abortion rights groups, also defended the medical exception. “The law is already clear,” he said. “Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not rewrite the law.”

The suit names the state of Texas, the Texas Medical Board and Board Executive Director Stephen Brint Carlton as defendants. Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, is also a defendant, though he is currently suspended pending a state Senate trial on impeachment charges alleging bribery and other wrongdoing.

Lawyers for the attorney general’s office, who could not be reached for comment, are asking the court to dismiss the suit. In a rebuttal petition, they accuse the plaintiffs of staging “splashy news conferences and media tours” to get a favorable court ruling “after failing to convince the Legislature to adopt their preferred version of the medical exception.”

A proposed court order by the plaintiffs asks the court to give physicians discretion to use “good faith judgment” in providing abortion care to someone withunsafe pregnancy complications or instances in which a fetus is unlikely to survive the pregnancy or live after birth.