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