The Senate State Affairs Committee met on March 15 to take up a number of bills. This report covers SB 394 (Lucio) and SB 650 (Campbell). A link to the meeting notice can be found here.
This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.
SB 394Â (Lucio) Relating to the regulation of drug-induced abortion procedures, providers, and facilities; providing criminal penalties.
- Current FDA regulations are part of a program called Risk Evaluation Management Strategy
- Drugs for abortions have serious safety risks
- Current talk to change FDA rules, so bill codifies the standards at the FDA at the state level, to prevent these drugs from being mailed to patients, not to limit access to these drugs
- Committee Substitute available; adds list of conditions that must be reported as “adverse events” and complies with constitutional reporting requirements
- Quotes Psalms on unborn children and hopes that the beliefs of himself and the legislature will be communicated
Katie Cline, Americans United for Life – For
- Unique safety and public health issues raise by drug induced/chemical abortions
- Abortion providers have been working to change REMS standards through the FDA
- Should the industry litigation be successful, states will have legal ambiguity about the nature of regulating these drugs
- Texas has no standards absent the FDA REMS standards, this bill changes that and codifies medical best practices
- Doctors need to be able to identify the contraindicators to abortion drugs and ensure women and girls do not have serious side effects
- Follow-up visits required to prevent infection and medical complications
- Prevents “DIY” abortions and leaving women with complications at home
- Prevents unlicensed abortion doctors from providing drugs to patients
- Bill would protect women, girls, and their unborn children
Dr. Ingrid Skop, Charlotte Lozier Institute – For
- Treated hundreds of women dealing with complications from abortions
- FDA regulations have been for safety purposes; strict safeguards in place
- Brief explanation of the process of drug-induced abortion and impact of medications
- Medication can lead to infections, hemorrhaging, and suppression of the immune system
- Country has never mandated abortion reporting or complication reporting, this bill changes that
- 5-8% of medical abortions fail and require surgeries in first trimester, ~40% fail in second trimester
- Chemical abortions result in 4x frequency rates of complications
- Longer and more expensive than other forms of abortion
- Many women do not return to abortion provider, but rather present at emergency room
- Abortion industry has been attempting to remove FDA requirements to allow mail-order or over the counter chemical abortion access
- Survey of providers found 1/3 had seen complications from self-administered abortions
- Provides details about abortion failure rates
- Bill would require abortion doctors take responsibility for patients whose chemical abortions fail
Jennifer Allmon, Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops – For
- No abortion is safe, every abortion kills a human person
- Texas is called to reduce harm to women from abortions until abortions are outlawed
- Changes to REMS will increase complications and become subject to widespread abuse by human traffickers and abusive partners
- Promotion of chemical abortions part of “throwaway culture” and “culture of death”
- Bill would reduce potential harms by codifying federal regulations
- This bill also makes it a state felony to mail pills into the state by an out-of-state abortionist, stronger and more effective than just revocation of license
- Bill offers greater protection and respect for women seeking or being forced to seek an abortion
SB 650Â (Campbell) Relating to prohibited logistical support by a governmental entity for procurement of an abortion or the services of an abortion provider.
- SB 22 from 86th Session prevented local and state agencies from funding abortion services
- Some cities and counties found a loophole in the form of providing support for logistical services to individuals seeking abortions
- Bill plugs the loophole
Dr. Joe Pojman, Texas Alliance for Life – For
- SB 22 made a statement that tax dollars should not be used to promote abortion
- State’s Healthy Texas Women program serves almost 300,000 women across the state, and doesn’t offer abortion
- City of Austin has gotten around SB 22 by allocating $500,000 for “abortion logistics services”
- SB 650 solves this loophole and prevents other municipalities from following in its footsteps
- Suggests Austin offer logistics support for anti-abortion resource centers and natal care facilities
Jennifer Allmonn, Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops – For
- SB 22 made it clear that tax dollars would not be used for abortions
- Austin is disregarding the will of Texans by funding abortion access
- Misdirected use of local tax subsidies for abortion services should never be subsidized or funded by tax dollars
- SB 650 can show Texas to be even more pro-life
Kyleen Wright, Texans for Life – For
- SB 650 is very necessary to clean up after the government entities that work against the will of the legislature
- The people of Texas have spoken through their elected officials that they do not want to fund abortion
- Many young mothers need logistical support, but we don’t provide them support, so why should we support abortion access?
- Eliminate this loophole
Alisha Jackson, Texas Attorney General – Resource
- Campbell – This bill is brought forth because of a loophole caused by the City of Austin signing contracts with organizations like Jane’s Due Process and subgrantees like Fund Texas Choice, how is that not a violation of SB 22, why didn’t the AG go after Austin?
- Analysis had to be that Jane’s Due Process was a provider or affiliate for the AG to have grounds
- This bill would resolve that murky definition
- Campbell – Does this new bill make it clear?
- Based on our reading, yes, but we can provide a deeper vetting for your office
- Lucio – Could this legislation be construed as penalizing a city for providing public transit used to access abortion services?
- Specifically related to abortion affiliates, would need to clarify with your office on the text of the bill
- Taking the bus would likely not qualify as providing logistics, as long as the woman is simply taking the bus and a municipality is not explicitly providing a line for abortion providers
- Campbell – Yes, will offer legislative intent on the bill, looks forward to analysis by the OAG
Spotlight on Public Testimony
Public testimony during this hearing continued for over 6 hours; the following spotlight focuses on testimony concerning SB 394 and SB 650.
Kirby Paddock, Students for Life Action – For 394
- Lack of regulations for abortion drugs can be used for violence against women
- Many times these drugs are not specifically for abortion, and many are used “off-label”
- Need to ensure these drugs are regulated and require doctor supervision for chemically-induced abortions
Susan Liebel, Susan B. Anthony List – For 394
- 394 is a timely and important move to lock in standards to protect women’s health
- Chemical abortion now consists of 39% of Texas abortions and 40% of national abortions
- Has been increasing over time
- Over half of all Planned Parenthood clinics around the country are pill-only clinics
- Chemical abortion pills are 4 times more dangerous than surgical procedures
- Abortion industry has been shifting to this form despite the risks due to lucrative and “simple” nature
- Mail-order and “DIY” abortion pills need to be prevented due to the medical and moral impacts
- Justice Clarence Thomas made a statement about preventing abortion from becoming modern day eugenics, which is why SB 1173 is so important
- Most pro-choice Americans support preventing abortion for eugenics purposes
Clara Ramsey, Students for Life Action – For SB 650
- Abortion industry targets 16–24-year-old – subsidizing logistics helps the industry exploit young girls
- 70% of Gen Z believes abortion should be illegal in some circumstances, and 53% of millennials believe it should be illegal in most or all circumstances
- Qualified health centers provide more care for women than abortion facilities
- End complicity with abortion industry
Amy O’Donnell, Texas Alliance for Life – SB 394
- RU486 safety regulations need to be maintained absent FDA regulations
- Drug-induced abortions are the 2nd most common form of abortions in Texas – 4x higher complication rates
- FDA regulations require in-person physician visit before a woman can obtain these drugs
- RU486 can result in severe health complications, including death and infertility, if a woman is contraindicated for the medication, which a physician can identify
- Want to protect future health and fertility of women seeking drug-induced abortions even as we push for the protection of unborn lives
Melanie Salazar, Students for Life Action – For SB 394
- Higher complication rates for abortion drugs directly affect college students like me
- Other states and colleges have mandated chemical abortions
- If FDA regulations are removed, telehealth could be manipulated to be a vendor of abortion pills
- Anonymous purchasing facilitates manipulation and sexual abuse and human trafficking
- Personal anecdote of sexual abuse and desire that those kinds of individuals don’t get access to abortion pills