This story was originally published by the Courier DFW.
In late April, the Texas Senate approved a controversial anti-abortion bill, SB 2880, which could lead to the criminal prosecution of women who obtain abortions, even if they travel to another state to do so. The bill, which revives a 1925 Texas abortion law, has sparked significant debate.
Senator Carol Alvarado, a Democrat from Houston, highlighted during the Senate debate on April 30 that SB 2880 “quietly revives Texas’s pre-Roe abortion ban by explicitly incorporating the 1925 law into the bill’s definition of criminal abortion law.” This law does not exclude women from prosecution and criminalizes assisting with abortion-related travel, which Alvarado fears could open the door to prosecuting women seeking out-of-state abortions.
The 1925 abortion ban is mentioned twice within SB 2880, according to Alvarado. In 2023, approximately 35,000 Texas women traveled out of state for abortions, actions that could become prosecutable under this bill. Violating the 1925 law carries a penalty of two to five years in prison.
At a hearing for a related bill, House Bill 44, Texas attorney Elizabeth Myers testified that SB 2880, along with HB 5510, “potentially re-animates a century-old abortion law that is currently void and unenforceable,” referring to the 1925 ban. She noted the law does not exempt pregnant Texans from prosecution and prohibits “furnishing the means” for abortions.
Attorney General Ken Paxton has previously supported the idea of enforcing pre-Roe abortion statutes. In 2022, after Roe v. Wade was overturned, Paxton wrote on X that these statutes were once again enforceable, stating, “Texas’s pre-Roe statutes criminalizing abortion is 100% good law, and I’ll ensure they’re enforceable.”
The Texas House is currently considering SB 2880, with its companion bill, HB 5510, having had a hearing on April 25. HB 5510 already has significant Republican support, with over a third of GOP members signed on as co-sponsors.
1925 abortion ban may be the end goal
Experts note that the inclusion of the 1925 ban in SB 2880 is significant, especially following the Senate’s passage of the “Life of the Mother Act” or SB 31. This bill, passed on April 29, aims to clarify when abortions can be performed to save a patient’s life.
Representative Donna Howard, an Austin Democrat, supports SB 31 for its potential to clear up confusion among healthcare professionals about legal abortion procedures in emergencies. Since the Texas Heartbeat Act of 2021, maternal mortality in Texas has increased by 56%, with similar rises in sepsis and infant mortality rates.
Howard expressed cautious optimism about SB 31, stating, “We can’t let the perfect get in the way of the good…if this allows me to save the lives of Texas moms, I’m going to do that.”
The 1925 law’s inclusion in SB 31 gained attention after women involved in the Zurawski v. Texas case lobbied against potential criminalization of women for obtaining abortions. Amanda Zurawski, a lead plaintiff, was “grateful” for amendments clarifying SB 31’s intent not to use the 1925 ban against women.
Senator Sarah Eckhardt, an Austin Democrat, described the progress as “a tiny step forward,” but criticized SB 2880 as a “staggering hurdle backwards.”
What looms if the Texas Legislature passes SB 2880?
SB 2880 could lead to pregnant women being prosecuted for out-of-state abortions and create a bounty system allowing any private citizen to sue those aiding women in obtaining abortions.
The bill targets manufacturers and distributors of abortion pills, as well as doctors prescribing them, even in states where such actions are legal.
Senator Eckhardt accused SB 2880’s supporters of isolating pregnant women and threatening those who might assist them. Despite pleas to remove references to the 1925 ban, Senator Hughes maintained the bill’s necessity to protect “innocent and helpless” unborn children and to safeguard women from “poisonous” out-of-state abortion pills.
Democratic Senator Molly Cook emphasized the need to make pregnancy safe and care for children, rather than punishing those assisting women seeking bodily autonomy. Blake Rocap, of the nonprofit Avow, warned of the “flashing red warning light” the 1925 ban references pose about the anti-abortion movement’s intentions, citing concerns about Attorney General Paxton’s potential support for enforcement actions.
—
Read More Kitchen Table News
