A protester holds up a sign in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on the morning the court takes up a major abortion case focusing on whether a Texas law that imposes strict regulations on abortion doctors and clinic buildings interferes with the constitutional right of a woman to end her pregnancy, in Washington March 2, 2016.

Credit: Kevin Lamarque/REUTERS

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

The Republican-led Legislature advanced a bill to almost immediately outlaw abortions in Texas if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion.

Called a “trigger” law, House Bill 1280 would take effect 30 days after the Supreme Court overturned the Roe decision or after a court ruling or constitutional amendment gave states the authority to prohibit abortions.

The bill does not make exceptions for women at risk of suicide or self-harm, pregnant as a result of rape or incest, or in the case of severe or potentially lethal fetal abnormalities. Women who face death or a “substantial impairment of major bodily function” if an abortion is not performed are excluded from the Texas ban.

The bill’s passage comes days after Gov. Greg Abbott signed one of the strictest abortion laws nationwide, and as a Supreme Court ruling on abortion — the first from its newly expanded conservative majority — is looming.

“Texas can return to its roots of protecting life from conception by passing a total ban on abortion effective as soon as allowed by a new Supreme Court ruling” said Shannon Jaquette, the policy analyst for the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, about the bill at a spring legislative hearing.

HB 1280, which already passed the House, needs another vote in the Senate before heading to the Texas governor for signature. It’s widely backed by Republicans, who have aggressively pushed conservative social issues as legislative priorities this session, ranging from abortion to the the permitless carry of handguns.

Experts say that if Roe were overturned, abortion access would likely be rolled back quickly in southern and midwestern states. Women who can’t afford to travel — or who can’t miss work or pay for child care — would likely be most affected.

At least 10 states have passed similar “trigger” laws, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion rights research organization.

More than 56,600 abortions were performed on Texas residents in 2019, most of them in the first trimester, according to state statistics.

Proponents of the “trigger” legislation say it would let the state’s part-time Legislature swiftly ban abortions if ever allowed by the Supreme Court.

But opponents say the ban and other abortion restrictions would simply push abortions underground or put them out of reach for people unable to travel out-of-state for the procedure.

“I’m worried we will see more people pursue sort of do-it-yourself — the proverbial back alley procedures that are less safe, and much more likely to have complications,” said state Rep. Erin Zwiener, D-Driftwood, in an interview earlier this year. “I think something a lot of my colleagues miss is that it’s not a choice between abortion and not abortion, it’s a choice between safe legal abortion and unsafe illegal abortion.”

The bill is expected to be the second major abortion measure to reach Abbott’s desk.

Earlier this month, Abbott signed into law a measure that would ban abortions as early as six weeks, before many women know they’re pregnant, without exceptions for rape or incest. The law lets virtually anyone sue abortion providers and others who help a woman get an abortion after a fetal heartbeat has been detected. A legal challenge is expected.

Fights over abortion access are heating up across the country.

Anti-abortion advocates have pushed aggressive restrictions for months, hoping to launch a case that could make it’s way to the Supreme Court. The Court agreed in May to hear a case concerning a Mississippi law that seeks to ban most abortions at 15 weeks, with a ruling expected sometime next year.

At the local level, abortion rights groups this month sued Lubbock after voters approved an ordinance outlawing abortions in the West Texas city’s limits.

“This is going to be a summer full of litigation,” said Drucilla Tigner, a policy and advocacy strategist at the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, one of the groups suing Lubbock. “This has been the worst session for abortion access in the history of the Texas Legislature at least since Roe v. Wade was decided” in 1973.

The issue of abortion access breaks largely along partisan lines and public sentiment has barely budged over the past few years. According to a 2021 University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll, 54% of Texas voters oppose automatically banning all abortions if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Nationally, the abortion rate has steadily declined since the 1980s, which experts attribute to greater access to contraception. The profile of people receiving abortions has also changed to be more concentrated among those with less means, said Daniel K. Williams, a history professor at the University of West Georgia. He wrote a book about the “pro-life movement before Roe v. Wade.”

Though legal abortion could “completely vanish” in parts of the country if the decision were overturned, Williams doesn’t think there would be a substantial decrease in the number of abortions.

People would travel to more liberal states, like New York and California, as they did before Roe v. Wade. And, already, people in southern and midwestern areas live in “what is almost a pre-Roe” environment, he said. Because there has been a rapid decrease of abortion providers in recent years, some women must already travel several hours to find an abortion provider, especially if they’re in a rural area, he said.

“People have correctly pointed out that if Roe v. Wade is repealed, low-income women would be disproportionately affected,” he said. “Though probably in most cases they would continue doing what they’ve already been doing, which is traveling and saving or borrowing money to get abortions.”

Retired University of Texas at Austin law professor Barbara Hines was one of several university students who helped women find abortion providers in the 1960s and 70s.

Working out of a small room in a community center across the street from the UT-Austin campus, Hines said the group started to provide information about birth control — then largely accessible only to married women — but began providing abortion referrals when pregnant women sought help.

“We sent women to all sorts of places,” she said. Some went to Piedras Negras, across the border from Eagle Pass, or flew to London. As abortion restrictions began loosening in the 1960s and 70s, others went to New York, New Mexico and California.

“Just like medical care today, it depends on your economic situation, and it wasn’t any different then,” she said.

Leave a comment

Welcome to the discussion.

• Transparency. Your full name is required.

• Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.

• PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.

• Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.

• Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.

• Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.

• Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article -- and receive photos, videos of what you see.

• Don’t be a troll. Don’t be a troll.

• Don’t post inflammatory or off-topic messages, or personal attacks.