Speaker 1: Welcome to the Texas trib Cast. I'm Women's health reporter
Eleanor klebanoff here today flying solo because Matthew Watkins, our
editor in chief, is off at a super secret meeting
which is actually not super secret. They are in an
all day planning meeting about trib Fest, which we're very
excited about. He is, you know, they're securing all those
big names that you know in love for trip Fest.
In exciting news, this year's trib Fest will be in November,
which is great if you don't like being cooked to
death in white canvas tents. So we are very excited
about that. We released him on that and it's very
good timing because you know, this is finally a week
of the trib Cast where I get to talk about
something I know about. I have been faking it for
so many weeks and now finally this is my area
of expertise.
Speaker 2: We're actually gonna interview yous.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, yes. And Matthew, you know, he couldn't stand it.
He's you know, usually he's the expert. He knows so
much about the Texas legislature. And he said, you know,
I won't be on it if you know more than
I do, so he walked off. No, we are going
to do this without him today, but he will be
back next week and we don't need him because we
have two phenomenal guests on two of my reporting colleagues,
sometimes reporting competitors, sometimes friends, sometimes enemies, sometimes frenemies. We've
got Baylis Wagner from the Austin American Statesman, Baylis, how
are you? I'm good, honor great? And Taylor Goldenstein from
the Houston Chronicle.
Speaker 2: Yes, got to be here.
Speaker 1: You guys are soon going to be journalistic siblings. Hurst
is Hurst, which currently owns the Houston Chronicle, is buying bought,
is in.
Speaker 2: The process of closing to buy.
Speaker 1: The Austin American Statesman.
Speaker 3: Yeah, First has bought the Statesman, but the merger is
not going to be finalized with this.
Speaker 1: Okay, so you guys speak. So we are your parents
are engaged, we married, You're engaged, they're not married yet. Yes, yes, okay,
Well that'll be fun for you guys to be pals
instead of enemies.
Speaker 3: Yeah for sure.
Speaker 2: Yes, we can actually finally talk and yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, thank you guys so much for joining us.
We are going to be talking about abortion, abortion politics,
the guiding light in Texas politics for more than a
decade and now a very you know, after we a
very I would say, quiet session last year, last session.
Now things are really heating up again on abortion. So Taylor,
maybe you can start and pick us back even further
to twenty twenty one, kind of twenty twenty one, to
now catch us up on you know, the journey to
where we stand now with these abortion bands.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I mean we start with SPA or do
you want to start that? Yeah, we start with SB eight.
Was this you know, kind of novel approach to banning
abortion where they were able to kind of get around
legal challenges by using a private citizen enforcement mechanism where
private citizens could sue if they knew of an illegal abortion.
And that was kind of the first Foray and to
you know, massively banning abortion. And then of course, we
know in June twenty twenty two, I believe the Supreme
Court knocked down Robe Wade, which made it possible for
Texas to pass what's called a trigger law. So they
anticipated that may happen and kind of put in legislation
saying if that happens, you know, we want to basically
go ahead and ban almost all abortions except those for
the life of the mother. So that's kind of where
we've been at legally, leading us to this session where
everything's been kind of focused on that one exception of
around the life of the mother.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I always tell people the time I started the
Tribune in November twenty twenty one, SBA was in effect.
But I was like, started this in this very weird
in between moments where SBA was in effect, abortions after
about six weeks of pregnancy were banned. It was like
a huge deal, right, this was like the first sort
of workaround to ban abortions under row. But still when
I started in November, I think a lot of we
were waiting for the US Supreme Court to say whether
or not SBA would be upheld. I think a lot
of people on all sides thought it would be struck down.
It was not good law, and it was and Roe
would like stop that. So in the when I started,
they were like yeah, and we sort of anticipated a
lot of sources like they would anticipate getting struck down.
And then about a week later got upheld and I
was like, oh, oh no, I.
Speaker 2: Thought this this is happening.
Speaker 1: This is happening. I mean I sort of was like,
this is happening because we've got the dabs hearing and
all that, but I was like, this happening now, right, Yeah,
really changed you as well.
Speaker 2: And that mechanism lives on. I'm sure we'll talk about it.
Speaker 1: Yea, it's like still in effect.
Speaker 2: And for other bills, I mean too, I mean that's
living on.
Speaker 1: So yes, we're finding a new.
Speaker 2: Uses for it every day. Yes, very useful.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so that was really interesting for me to in
a matter of two weeks be like, oh, this is
now the full focus.
Speaker 2: Right yeah, yeah, yeah, I can imagine I was jarring
for the abortion clinics as well. Yes, yeah, how quickly
that all kind of like collassed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was such a such a period of time,
really crazy. And now it feels like, of course it's
an effect, like right, feel it's not even a question anymore.
But at the time it felt very shocking.
Speaker 3: But it's still interestingly causes a lot of confusion where
you know, I'll sometimes write about the law all abortions
are banned except those to save the life the mother, essentially,
which we'll get into the language of the exception later.
But people still think that it's legal until six weeks
because that's what SBA legalized. They still just constantly they
don't realize that it is no longer that, like there's
a criminal penalty if you have you know, a heaper
form and abortion before six weeks.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: There was a study not too long ago that people
didn't even know the clinics were closed. Like there was
a question said, you know, can you still get an abortion?
People said yes.
Speaker 3: A lot of people didn't know. There's no rape exception,
there's no incestic exception, there's no exception for fatal fetal diagnoses. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think we've heard that from so many people who
have needed to seek an abortion for like a lethal
field anomaly or something like that, where they say like
they didn't know until it was there, until you need it,
that like there's no exception for that, and then they're
convincing their family members like oh no, no, no, neverone's like, oh,
I thought it would deal with that, and you're like
it does not. Yeah, So that sort of catches us
up to today, where abortion is banned up to six
weeks or after six weeks. In pregnancy through private enforcement
is banned from the moment of conception through criminal enforcement.
We are going to talk about the pre ro band
so just put a pin in that for now, but
baylis talk about like what sort of the like what
issues we've seen under this for patients and providers, and
then we'll get into what the clarifying bills aimed to do.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so I think the point to start talking to
this would be twenty women who had had serious pregnancy
complications and two obgi ns sued the state over their
complications and sort of I think became the biggest source
of people sharing their stories of how this band it
affected them. The lead plaintiff, Amanda Zarowski, had a premature
water break and because while the pregnancy was doomed without
any amniotic fluid, the fetal cardiac activity was still there.
A hospital told her she basically had to wait for
it to pass, and in that time she developed sepsis,
which is a life threatening infection, and that sort of
like galvanized a movement I guess to talk about, you know,
where is the line with the risk of death for
mother Other women have spoken about having a diagnosis for example,
and these are you know, women with very wanted pregnancies.
One Caitlin Cash who lives in Austin, had a child
that had a condition that meant the bones did not
develop correctly and could break within her womb, and also
that it would not that the fetus would not survive,
and she under Texas law, you can't leave the state
in that case. So she felt that the best decision
for her family was to leave the state. She took
part in the Zarosky lawsuit. There's a woman who Samantha Cassiano,
who had a child that lung the lungs did not
develop correctly and also I think the brain it was
I don't remember the name of the condition, but I
think yes, And she couldn't leave the state to terminate
the pregnancy, and she testified just last week. But also
in this Zaroski case about watching the baby that she
gave birth to choke over the course of ours, eyes
turning purple. So it's it's that kind of thing where,
you know, some women choose to carry those pregnancies to term,
and other women feel that they want to have the
choice to terminate those pregnancies. So that's that's, you know,
aside from all the cases in which women want to
get abortions for other reasons.
Speaker 4: Than medical diagnoses, right, Like the crux of the issue
that we've like sort of seen emerge in the last
three I mean three years since SBA, certainly, but certainly
since the near total ban is like this question right
about like when can doctors intervene, like you said with
Amanda Zarowski, and like, as you said, Taylor, like there
is an exception for you know, the law says basically
like if the pregnant patient is going to is going
to die or like suffer significant issues with like the
like long term medical impacts because of continuing to carry
this pregnancy.
Speaker 1: But the consequences are so strict, right like Taylor, like
what why are doctors say? Why do you doctors say,
like they're hesitating to intervene on these pregnancies.
Speaker 2: Right, These are steep penalties, the possibility of up to
ninety nine years in prison, raplication of your medical license,
things that would basically ruin your life. So I think
between the doctors and the doctor's lawyers, I think that
is a huge risk to be taking when you know
you could gamble on like just waiting a little bit
and waiting a little bit, right.
Speaker 1: I think, Like it's so funny, like we I think
we hear a lot about like, you know, waiting until
the patient has like gotten to a point where it's
so clear their life is endangered that now will act.
I also feel like, anecdotally I've heard I think sometimes
doctors just acting in their own sort of like personal interests,
think like i't just wait, like and then my shift
will be over. And then you know that it's like
the ur and like you have to get the nurses
on board, you have to get like the doctor, the
hospital lawyer. Like this is not I think we see
this as like a doctor's stand. They're looking at a
patient being like wait till you're sicker. But really it's
like a whole apparatus. These are happening in hospitals. These
are happening in like the state's biggest hospitals.
Speaker 2: So yeah, and I wonder how much of it is
even conscious or it's just like okay, well maybe not
now and then the next time you get to that patient, yeah.
Speaker 1: Right, exactly. Yeah, And we've now had at least three
stories of women. We've had three stories reported of women
who have died due to this delayed care, which sort
of brought us to this point. I mean We've had
anti abortion groups lawmakers and saying like these laws are clear,
we don't need to clarify them, like the doctors are
the like if the doctors aren't acting, I remember at
the Zaraski hearing they were saying like if your doctors
aren't treating you, soon them for medical malpractice. Was basically
the message like this isn't a problem with the law
that has changed. We had to be three pro Public
has reported on these three women who died and due
to this delayed care and.
Speaker 2: And theist reporting as well in the.
Speaker 1: Sepsist reporting, right, this like huge increase in patients, pregnant
patients experiencing sepsis, which brings us to now. I mean,
it's funny like in I think it was like November,
right before the election, Brian Hughes, the author of several
Texas abortion bans, a senator from Miniola, wrote this op
ed that was like I wrote, the abortion laws they're clear,
they don't need to be clarified.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, what happened next to yes?
Speaker 1: Ye? Yeah.
Speaker 2: Fast forward some months and we're in the legislative session
and there's a bipartisan bill on the table to clarify
the law. Change some of the language to with the
intents of making it clearer and making it more possible
for doctor Stantervene sooner.
Speaker 1: And Baalis, I mean talk about this bill and what
isn't it and what is not in it?
Speaker 3: Yeah, So I think the most potentially disappointing thing was
that there was some talk that may be an exception
for fatal fetal anomalies when you know you're pregnant and
the you know, a doctor says this fetus is not
going to survive, would be carved out. That's not the case.
What it does is it takes inconsistent language among the
three abortion bands, three different laws that Texas has, and
streamlines the exception for medical emergencies, where once there was
a language that said a woman must have a life
threatening condition that causes risk of death or risk of
serious risk of substantial loss of a major bodily function,
which is where its soup, as one lot professor told me, now,
it's it takes out this prerequisite that you have a
life threatening condition. So it's a truly bifurcated law. You know,
risk of substantial laws and major bodily function or risk
of death. It says that you can you know, doctors
need not wait until the risk is imminent to intervene it.
It's clarify. Its widens the definition of an ectopic pregnancy
because those can be you know, in scar tissue, you know,
and be dangerous, not just be outside the woman, be dangerous.
And it also requires that doctors got a certain amount
of education on what the law says. Groups like Texas
Right to Life have said that the problem for them
is not that the law needs to clarify, but the
doctors aren't educated on it. So, you know, doctors generally
have disagreed with that, but we'll see. And then it
also has a course for alerts that can take right.
Speaker 1: I mean this and you know, I think this is
the kind of thing like we as journalists cannot hit
hard enough. It's like, this does not expand who can
get an abortion in Texas. It does expand, it hopefully
expands who is able to get an abortion they previously
qualified for how qunquote and how quickly?
Speaker 3: Yeah, the timing I think is the key.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Right, And this it's gotten a lot of great feedback, right,
I mean, we've got some very strange bedfellows on this law. Right,
We've got Senator Brian Hughes of you know, strongly anti
abortion conservative. And on the House side we have Representive
Donna Howard, Representative Anne Johnson. These like very pro abortion.
Some of the most like I think, outspoken abortion advocates
in the House on board doctors groups are on board.
Speaker 3: Uh, Texas Hospital Associate, Texas.
Speaker 1: Hospital Association, the anti abortion groups.
Speaker 2: Like it was feeling Medical Association.
Speaker 1: Like we were gonna have a little moment of five
partisan joy. Wouldn't that be nice? That's what it was
looking like. Yes, and then we still may I think
another record scratch, Yeah, another record scratch. This issue has
reared its ugly head about. As I was telling Baylists before,
this my literal favorite thing to talk about in the
entire world, the pre ro banks fun. Yes, I am
obsessed with the pre ro laws. So, for brief explanation,
when roebe Wade was decided in nineteen seventy three, people
forget it was actually a Texas case, and so they
essentially put on ice all states abortion bands, but specifically
they were saying, Texas, your law is unconstitutional. Now Texas said, okay,
they did not take it off the books, they left
it sitting there, but it was unenforced for forty nine years.
Then ROW is struck down by and replaced with Dobbs,
which says you can ban abortion. And the question emerged
of are those pre ROW laws still on the books.
And it only matters because these laws allow would allow
the state to criminally penalize anyone who furnishes the means
for an abortion. So groups that help people pay to
travel out of state and things like that, people who
help bring you know, are involved in abortion pills and
things like that, are very nervous about those laws being
put back into effect.
Speaker 2: And critically, can I add two on it? Unlike the
most recent bands does not have an exception for criminalizing
the mother.
Speaker 1: Yes, right, which is a huge I mean under Texas
existing or definitely existing laws, they cannot the person who
has the abortion cannot be criminalized.
Speaker 2: Right, And that's been a major Republican talking point. We
don't want to go there.
Speaker 3: Yes, we have the Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick saying that's ridiculous.
Anyone who says that we would go after the mother
is you know, the Republicans are saying that, not really Republicans.
Speaker 1: Yeah, The problem is, like, are the pre ro laws
in effect? If you ask conservative lawmakers, they say, yes,
they are definitively in effect. We have written them into
statute before. Those laws are good laws.
Speaker 2: Sorry.
Speaker 1: If you ask the other side, they say, definitively they
are not in effect. The Fifth Circuit, the Appellate Court,
has said that they are repealed by implication. Taylor talking
about like how this is now coming into this.
Speaker 2: Issue, right, Yeah, So I think just very recently the
abortion funds have come out and so that they oppose
this clarification law or these clarification laws because they believe
that basically, by amending that, you know, Baylis's pointed out,
you have to change the definition everywhere it appears in
the law. So they're going to make them all the same.
That means you have to touch the what are we
calling them pre ro brands, And by doing that, you're
basically signaling to courts that we think this is an effect,
because if it weren't, why do you need to amend
amend it? So to them, that would be kind of
the green light for the courts to then say that
those laws are active, and it would kind of counteract
their previous argument that they are not in effect.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a real like legal gray area. It's one
of those things where each side, if you call it
like a legal debate, they're like, well, it's not really
a debate, right, and you're like, but you each have
different reasons why you think that's right the case. Yeah. Yeah,
it's super complicated, yes, but I love it because I
love unresolved legal question.
Speaker 2: It's one of those end the weds things that probably
the general public or reporters wouldn't even get into if
it weren't like the crux of the issue here, you
have to talk about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I people often call these the nineteen twenty
five laws, which is inaccurate.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is my real bugle.
Speaker 2: I thought you were going to go there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is my real thing. If people, if I
have one influence on Texas journalism, it is people will
stop calling them the nineteen twenty five laws and call
them the eighteen fifty seven laws. Okay, nineteen twenty five
is just when Texas codified its penal code. So all
of our laws are nineteen twenty five laws unless they've
been amended since.
Speaker 2: So do you think there's like a political aspect to
that or now.
Speaker 3: Nineteen twenty five objectively sounds.
Speaker 2: It sounds much better than yeah, we gotta go back
to fifty seven.
Speaker 1: Yeah, almost Now. I do think like when Arizona was
debating their pre ro statue, like all the messaging from
the abortion access people was very like these laws existed before,
like Arizona was even a state, Like these existed before
the Civil War.
Speaker 2: Feels very like give it some context.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, but yeah, I think can we talk about
sort of the other side of the debate, right, so
the abortion funds are very concerned that, you know, this
would make them stop work potentially because it has this
language not furnishing the means for an abortion. I talked
with some legal experts. One of them is Less Sepper,
a professor of law at UT and she feels that
the argument is not that strong what she says in
and you alreadys also talked to her eleanor I believe.
But what she said is that one this law was
only ever construed to apply in state, so you know,
the funds for out of state abortions shouldn't be affected
because the means for an abortion that was meant to
apply like to having an abortion in state, although of
course it could apply to pills that come into the state.
Another thing she said was that the courts have always
interpreted it to be to not be able to be infortune.
So I think, you know, she thinks that, you know,
she thinks that it's sort of not a super likely chance.
You would have to have a judge first find that
the law hadn't been repealed, and then you'd have to
find a judge that says, yes, this can be enforced
out of state, which is already a whole nother constitutional
Pandora's box that is, you know, being debated elsewhere. And
there's another law that would actually you know, codify abortion.
You know, funding abortions out of state is not law bill,
the funding abortion out of state is illegal.
Speaker 1: That's another subject, right, Yeah, I think that's right. Like
this this question of like, is is this an attempt
to revive the pre ro laws? Is like I think
a lot of conservatives think they're already good law. Like,
they don't we don't need to revive anything. And so
if we're gonna amend our abortion laws, why wouldn't we
amend all of our abortion.
Speaker 2: Laws that are in effect.
Speaker 1: They're not they're not mad about it, no, right, and
they're not.
Speaker 2: Like saying we're open to taking that out right, Yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Mean they're trying to belt some suspenders every single time
they can. Pre Ro laws are good statute, even though
the courts have been like.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but that it's absolutely true that you could totally there,
it is not. You can't rule out the possibility that
they could find a way to.
Speaker 1: I mean, the clean path forward if they were like,
oh no, no, no, our intent was never to revive
the prero statutes, would be to repeal the prero statutes,
and that's obviously not gonna happpen, right.
Speaker 2: So well, but then talking about the fifth I mean,
the other part of this is that you know, this
post stops has not gone up the appellate ladder yet,
so we don't know really, I mean, we can surmise
based on you know, politics, but we don't know where
that case will go.
Speaker 1: And while those are federal courts, right, this is a
state law. Like it's all unresolved and really really interesting.
You mentioned Bayless, the other big bill also being carried
by Senator Brian Hughes SB twenty eight eighty. That is
a what I believe legal experts are calling the most
wide ranging attempt yet to crack down on abortion pills
and travel and all the ways Texans are sort of
thwarting the abortion bands. Talk a little bit about what's
in that film.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So according to Texas Right to Life, there are
seven enforcement mechanisms in this bill. It is a monolith.
It would notably bar First of all, it will allow
private citizens to sue companies out of state, you know,
wherever they're based that for you know, provide information on
abortion pills, or provide the pills, you know, to be mailed,
which some experts or some you know, the American Civil
Liberties Union, for example, last week, we're like, that's a
First Amendment concern. Who knows. They The law would make
it illegal to yeah, fund an abortion or help someone
get an abortion out of state, which would very clearly
challenge sort of what people think, you know, precedent on
the right of people within a certain state to travel
out of state for commerce. It would, I think, Yeah,
those are the sort of the main, the main things
about it. And it'll be interesting because a judge in
Alabama just ruled a federal judge just ruled that a
similar Alabama law that that would ban helping someone get
an abortion out of state was completely unconstitutional and said,
and I think this is an interesting comparison that it
would be like, sorry, not Alabama, Louisiana, that it would
be like telling someone that it's illegal for them to
go to pay for a flight to Las Vegas to gamble. Yeah,
because criminal laws are generally, you know, construed to apply
within the state that passes.
Speaker 1: Them, right. I think it was Alabama, it was okay,
I think so, thank you. Yeah, it's usually Louisiana.
Speaker 3: Okay, thank you.
Speaker 1: What else stands out to you about this bill? I mean,
what are you hearing?
Speaker 2: I think the private enforcement mechanism part is interesting too.
We're seeing that comeback here or you know, anyone who
hears about really any private citizen that could be. We've
seen it a lot in you know, spouse's ex spouses, boyfriends,
other partners. But also that could be any of your
medical staff or anyone who is aware can technically file
suit against you for damages for.
Speaker 1: Like for one hundred thousand dollars cases. It really is
an escalation of the test originally, that's true.
Speaker 3: And one thing I forgot to mention is that it
would give Attorney General Ken Paxton notable abortion opponent to
say the least, the right to take up any case
that a district attorney does not take that's a criminal,
you know, abortion case essentially, right now, Paxton can't just
decide to take in a abortion case or any criminal case.
He has to be invited, so that that would be
a huge change.
Speaker 1: And would also expand the wrongful death statute, which we've
already seen used and there's been like one a man
brought a wrongful death lawsuit against his ex wife saying
that because she had an abortion that you know, he
could sue for wrongful death of like of the child
against her friends who helped with the abortion. That case
sort of ended up petering out, but it does end
up like it's an somewhat unresolved question that this would
answer by saying you can sue for wrongful death. Taylor,
you mentioned like the X spouse piece of this, and like,
I think what we're seeing now and what like I
think a lot of people who have studied like pregnancy
and abortion criminalization know is like that's basically how these
cases emerge. Right, It's like a medical provider or you're.
Speaker 2: You know, nicks, how do you find out about it? Right?
And your heart, Like it's.
Speaker 1: Not like these you know, like these like local ordinances
that are like you can't use our roads and things
like that. It's like people always say like, well, how
would they even know how they out And it's like
you have your break.
Speaker 2: Up unless you have one of those banners like when
you're going to state abortion.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, probably not. Yeah, I mean this bill, like
you said, it faces I mean, let's be clear, even
if it passes the Senate faces a much harder road
in the House. It also faces pre significant legal challenges.
Speaker 3: Yeah, wouldn't likely be you know, in effect. As soon
as it went into effect, it would be tied up
in court almost certainly, which.
Speaker 1: Doesn't seem to bother legislators that much.
Speaker 3: That's the fun of it for them, I think.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, you know, see what the courts say. And obviously,
as we saw with SBA, like you just have to
find the creative workaround that the works. Right, So a
much more abortion heavy session, we're sort of back to
our old our old games and an interesting sort of
to use your word Bayliss, like bifurcated session of like
we're clarifying, we're working with these groups, we're trying to
like get these laws, you know, sort of cleaned up.
And on the other hand, we're also trying to crack
down much more aggressively on how people are thwarting those.
Speaker 3: Those laws and the politics are so interesting. I think
with how much negative attention Texas's abortion ban got last
election cycle, I think some people thought and Trump, you know,
sort of trying to not talk about abortion. People thought, maybe,
you know, this was being viewed as not a popular issue,
not something that you know, politicians wanted to touch. And
then I think, you know, the SB twenty eight eighty
was like, no, we are, we are stepping on the gas.
We are not going to let up. But I also
wonder if there's part of this that is about perception.
Republicans in Texas, their primary voters are generally very anti abortion.
They don't want to be perceived as supporting abortion anyway.
This clarification bill could be used against them. Supporting a
bill that will, you know, unquestionably crack down on abortion.
Does that give them more leverage? You know? I think
that's I don't know if you guys have thought about,
but that's something I kind of wonder.
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely, I think it's almost like in the current
it's hard to do one without it's hard to push
for one without the other. A little bit, I think
this is not surprising to me that we're seeing both
this like effort to clarify at the same time that
we're seeing this massive crackdown.
Speaker 2: I think, Yeah, even those hearings were scheduled on the
same day. Yes, so even physically they're being and heard together. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Right, they're very much moving in locksteps so far. I mean,
I do think the clarifying bill will have more luck
in the House than SB twenty eighty, but like not
to say it won't pass the House, just to say
it's like going to face a harder road. Just briefly
to talk about this, we had a crazy day to
what by the time this runs. Two weeks ago, where
as you mentioned, all three of the big priority abortion
bills were up in the Senate for a committee hearing.
At the same time, there was a hearing in Waller
County about Texas's first arrest of a medical provider after
under the abortion bands. It was a midwife in will
Our County who's accused of performing abortions in violation of
the bands, and we got a court ruling out of
New York State saying they would not honor basically Texas's
legal battle against a New York doctor who is accused
of mailing pills into Texas. It's all happening all on
many fronts, all at once. I mean, uh, Taylor, what's
your sense of, you know, on the ags, on the
attorney general side, on the executive side, how they're like
continuing to sort of batter this issue, right.
Speaker 2: I think that's kind of been their mo from the beginning,
is you know, what are the different ways we can
find I mean, in the same way we're talking about
how people are thwarting the bands, they're on the other
side trying to figure out, you know, what can we
do under the you know, constraints of the law to
go after people who are still somehow you know, having abortions,
And so this is just kind of a continuation of that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Bayliss, I mean what do you see in like again,
as we talked about, like not all of these are
gonna are going to necessarily succeed in court, but what
sort of your impression of their willingness like take on
these to be like the first big case.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's the game plan. I think, you know, abortion
is one area where I think jurisprudence is so important,
and so any reporter who touches on abortion is is
a court supporter as well. But you know also with
you know, religious freedom or religious you know, church and
state issues. So I think, I mean, I think SB
twenty eighty is very much proved and we'll see how
much lawmakers go for it in the House. But you
know that they want to throw everything against the wall
and see what sticks. And I think this arrest of
the medical provider in Houston, Maria Rojas, is also, you know,
very much showing that they want to put some case
law on the books of you know, when this can
be enforced. And in a way it's you know, a
pretty smart case because she's accused of acting as a
doctor when she is not. And so even if the
abortion charges don't stick, there's something they can say they
want if if that's you know, if that's proven.
Speaker 1: Right, Like we were talking about this just before, you know,
the judge in Waller County said basically like you guys
are all here very worried about the abortion piece. I'm
very worried about like a doctor is someone purporting to
be a doctor. It's like there's a couple of legal
issues ensnared in this that you're right, Like, even if
let's say it does play out and they're not able
to pin illegal abortions on her, if you you know,
you still get the headline when you arrest her. You
still get the headline when you know, eventually if she
is indicted, you get the headline. You know, if if
she does get any jail time, Like, you know, the
details matter. I think sometimes less in this in these games,
in these like uh, you know, rush to be to
get your name out there and be the first on
these big charges.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Paxson got to put his name on this one too,
because Waller County kind of well they're joining up, but
they were able to kind of bring him in so
that you know, he.
Speaker 3: Brought them in.
Speaker 1: Yeah, brought them yes, right, yeah, they were like.
Speaker 2: That's true, back and forth, right, Yeah, absolutely, yeah.
Speaker 3: You know, in terms of like he seems to get
a lot of positive feedback when he does this, obviously
gets a lot of negative feedback to but I don't
know if he hears that.
Speaker 1: Certainly, I mean, if I think from voter, from the
people who he needs to vote for him. I think
this is a real bread and butter issue, and you know,
as someone who is teasing a run for the Senate,
I think, uh, you know, he's certainly trying to, you know,
do what he has continued to do, which is appeal
to Republican voters, and this fits that. Yeah. Well, that
was truly my favorite episode the Tribcast. Yet that's it
for today. You can find all episodes of the trib
Cast on YouTube or wherever you find your podcasts. Be
sure to like, subscribe, and share the podcast on all
of your platforms. If you'd like to get in touch
with us, as I'm sure everyone will after this episode,
lots of thoughts. We get so many My inboxes is amazing.
You can reach us at Tribcast at Texastribune dot org.
Thank you guys both for joining us.
Speaker 3: Thank you, thank you for having yea.
Speaker 1: Our producers are Rob Avula and Chris Spobda. Our theme
music is composed by Rob and we will see you
next week.