Abortion – Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information

“If the goal is to prosecute people who perform these acts, what’s written here goes way beyond that,” said Moody, one of the leading criminal justice experts in the House. He chairs the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee and worked as a prosecutor in the El Paso County District Attorney’s Office for four years.

It wasn’t a mistake. The amendment failed, 51-83 and only one Democrat, Representative Ryan Guillen of Rio Grande City, voted against.

The Observer spoke to several other attorneys who each interpreted the bill’s applications differently — indicating, at the very least, that the bill provides a subjective tool for prosecutors, who can be politically motivated. And that has Moody worried.

SB 8, which awaits final approval from the Senate, would criminalize “partial birth abortions” and “dismemberment abortions” — both nonmedical terms used by anti-abortion advocates. The first is for a procedure already prohibited under federal law, and the second describes a dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure, one of the most common forms of second trimester abortions. Both bans would subject a doctor who performs the abortion to a state jail felony, punishable by up to two years in prison, and exempt the woman who had the procedure. But under Texas law, prosecutors could come after anyone else involved in the process, unless they’re specifically exempted in the legislation.

The “law of parties” in Texas allows a person connected to but not actually committing a crime to also be charged. A person is criminally responsible under Texas law if he or she, acting with intent, “solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense.” The law is intended to help take down criminal networks, Moody says, but can also be wielded against, for example, individuals loosely connected to the provision of an unlawful abortion.

“I think by rejecting my amendment, [opponents showed] their intent was not only to go after physicians. I guess I misunderstood,” Moody told the Observer. “[This bill] is so poorly drafted, so poorly worded, that I think it shows they’re not really concerned about making good policy.”

The key question is whether a person was knowingly involved, said Representative Jeff Leach, R-Plano.

If a bookkeeper or receptionist has no idea what’s going on, they shouldn’t be held to the same responsibility as the doctor performing the abortion, Leach told the Observer. But if they do know, that’s a different story.

“If there’s any individual who may not actually be performing the abortion but is knowingly assisting the criminal enterprise — that may not be a good way to put it — who is knowingly assisting in the provision of an unlawful abortion — then our laws ought to be narrowly tailored to hold those responsible,” said Leach, who was concerned Moody’s proposal might have let them off the hook and requested it be withdrawn.

As GOP lawmakers move to expand the scope of prosecution, they’ve also broadened the definition of what constitutes an illegal abortion. Following the 2016 Supreme Court ruling that struck two main provisions from Texas’ House Bill 2, members have shifted their rhetoric on abortion. Instead of claiming to protect women’s health, they’re criminalizing the procedure.

The Abolish Abortion Act, proposed by Arlington Republican Tony Tinderholt, also of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, would criminalize abortion at any stage and charge women and providers with a felony, without exemption for rape or incest. Tinderholt told the Observer the proposal would “force” women to be “more personally responsible.” Another proposal by fellow caucus member Matt Schaefer, R-Tyler, would remove the exception for fetal anomaly from the state’s 20-week abortion ban.

Leach, an attorney and Freedom Caucus member who describes himself as “pro-life and for the death penalty,” says there is a problem with how the “law of parties” is used in capital punishment, and he’s worked on bipartisan efforts this session to reform the law.

Without Moody’s failed amendment, the “partial birth abortion” ban does not exclude anyone besides the woman from criminal prosecution. The D&E ban, meanwhile, does clarify who cannot be prosecuted: “an employee or agent acting under the direction of a physician… or a person who fills a prescription or provides equipment” used in the abortion.

Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life, said that he would support individuals who knowingly assist with the abortion facing prosecution, but that Moody’s inclusion of drivers and receptionists was “far-fetched.”

“It’s possible a third party could be prosecuted, but it would have to be someone close to the physician that is knowingly performing the abortion, like a nurse,” added Pojman, who said that in his 25 years lobbying against abortion in Texas, he’s never heard this kind of objection.

Leach also said he didn’t think Moody’s amendment was necessary, because the bill already protects unknowing participants from criminal prosecution.

“That’s wrong, and I told him that,” said Moody. The “knowingly perform” language in the bill is referring to the abortion provider only, but “others don’t have to know what’s going on, they can just be part of the process…The law of parties casts a wide net,” Moody said. “Prosecutors have wide discretion on the charges being brought.”

This ample freedom granted to prosecutors concerns critics of SB 8.

“We worry about rogue or malicious prosecutors,” said Blake Rocap, legal counsel for NARAL Pro-Choice Texas. “The point of this bill isn’t smart criminal justice; it’s targeted prosecution of people who want to help women access health care.”

Source: Texas Observer

https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-bill-could-send-people-to-jail-for-driving-a-woman-to-an-abortion/

An amendment by Representative Stephanie Klick, R-Fort Worth, bans what anti-abortion advocates call “dismemberment abortion.” That’s another nonmedical term referring to the dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure — one of the most common types of abortion during the second trimester.

Critics and some supporters agree the measures are not intended to advance women’s health — a critical standard set by the Supreme Court — raising the likelihood for future court challenges.

“This legislature has a history of passing bills that have been struck by the courts because they’re unconstitutional,” said Representative Chris Turner, D-Grand Prairie during debate. He argued that the D&E ban would eliminate legal abortion options for many women.

Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down two main provisions of House Bill 2, Texas’ major anti-abortion law passed in 2013. The court ruled that the state cannot add restrictions that would create a burden on access without evidence that the regulations are necessary for women’s health. More than half of the abortion clinics in Texas were forced to close by the time the law was deemed unconstitutional.

“Why don’t we just stop passing unconstitutional laws for a change?” Turner said.

Supporters of the bill sidestepped questions of whether the proposed measures would improve women’s health, instead focusing on emotional pleas and graphic descriptions of abortion procedures.

“Abortion is a sin, it’s wrong, it’s evil,” said Representative Briscoe Cain, R-Deer Park.

In a Senate hearing earlier this year, SB 8 author Senator Charles Schwertner, an orthopedic surgeon from Georgetown, repeatedly cited the debunked Planned Parenthood videos, not women’s health, as the reason for the bill. Representative Cindy Burkett, R-Sunnyvale, the bill’s House sponsor, said Friday she is concerned with “fetal tissue becoming a commodity.”

The fetal remains burial requirement has already been ruled unconstitutional in Texas.

The measure was originally proposed last year by the state health department, just days after the Whole Woman’s Health ruling. The regulations were blocked by U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks, who said they placed new undue burdens on abortion access. The state is appealing and the case will likely be at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the next few months.

Vice President Mike Pence signed a similar bill into law as governor of Indiana, but a federal judge blocked the measure last year.

Opponents of SB 8 say the requirements will further stigmatize abortion and add the kind of burdensome regulations that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional.

“Clinics would have to get new contractors, and the rules create new burdens they may not be able to comply with,” said Blake Rocap, legislative counsel for NARAL Pro-Choice Texas. “The other side knows that. They know if they make it hard enough to comply, clinics won’t have a license.”

The new fetal remains bill, if given final passage, will be added to the current lawsuit, said Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of Whole Woman’s Health and lead plaintiff in last year’s Supreme Court case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. She is again at the center of the case in the fetal burial lawsuit.

“This is not based on any science or fact, [anti-abortion advocates] know that,” Hagstrom Miller said. “They’re trying to say what happened in the Supreme Court doesn’t apply to us in Texas.”

The bill’s supporters say the measure will survive legal challenges. It would not create an undue burden on clinics because added costs would be minimal, they say. The bill creates a registry of funeral homes and cemeteries willing to provide free or low-cost burials.

“This is really about ensuring babies are treated in a humane manner — that their bodies are not desecrated, their organs are not harvested and sold,” said Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life, the anti-abortion group aligned with Republican House leadership.

Abortion providers could also “absorb the cost, as a good faith measure to women,” Pojman suggested, emphasizing that the cost would be “very small.”

In fact, a cremation costs between $1,500 to $4,000, according to a letter submitted to the state by the Texas Medical Association and Texas Hospital Association last year. A full funeral costs about $7,000 to $10,000.

Democrats scrambled to moderate SB 8. An amendment from Representative Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, would have added a religious exemption to the burial requirement. Representative Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, tried to add an exemption to the D&E abortion ban in cases where doctors found it was the safest option for the mother, and another that would exempt cases in which the mother’s life was in danger. An amendment from Representative Barbara Gervin-Hawkins, D-San Antonio, would have exempted cases of rape and incest.

All these amendments failed.

“Politicians have no place in the medical exam room,” Donna Howard, D-Austin, said tearfully. “If you want to stop abortions, then help me to stop unwanted pregnancies” by supporting contraception. Abortions happened before Roe v. Wade made them legal, she said, and will continue with these new restrictions, but less safely.

Texas Alliance for Life had urged lawmakers not to support a D&E abortion ban, saying it was sure to result in a court challenge. Meanwhile, Texas Right to Life, aligned with the House Freedom Caucus, cheered the passage of its priority bill.

Conservative lawmakers drew the line at a controversial amendment by Representative Matt Schaefer, R-Tyler, that would outlaw abortions after 20 weeks, including in cases of a fetal abnormality. Burkett called the amendment “a step too far.”

“Why should a woman be forced to give birth to a baby that will die in birth?” Anchia asked. “Because it’s a person created in the image of God,” Schaefer said.

Source: Texas Observer

https://www.texasobserver.org/abandoning-womens-health-claims-texas-house-approves-wide-ranging-anti-abortion-bill/