In 2022, Ashley Brandt was overjoyed to learn she was expecting identical twin girls. However, that joy turned into anguish when one of the twins was diagnosed with acrania—a rare and fatal condition. The diagnosis jeopardized not only the affected twin’s life but also Brandt’s own health and the life of the surviving twin.
Due to Texas’ strict abortion law (Senate Bill 8), Brandt was denied necessary medical care in her home state and was forced to travel to Colorado for an abortion, just two weeks before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.
Brandt’s experience left her shaken and angry. She became one of the plaintiffs in Zurawski v. Texas, advocating for changes in abortion laws. She criticized Texas lawmakers for treating pregnant women like “collateral damage” and expressed fear that her loved ones and doctors might face legal consequences for supporting her decision. Her story is part of a larger struggle in Texas, where abortion restrictions are among the most severe in the country, with virtually no exceptions—even in cases of medical emergencies.
New Bipartisan Bills Aim for Clarity but Leave Critical Abortion Exceptions Unclear, Risky
In response to public outcry and preventable deaths, Texas lawmakers introduced two bipartisan bills—Senate Bill 31 and House Bill 44—aimed at clarifying exceptions to the abortion ban. These bills intend to reduce ambiguity by specifying which medical emergencies qualify for legal abortion care and by defining key terms like “ectopic pregnancy.” While proponents claim these bills will help save lives, critics argue the changes are insufficient and fail to address the real issues faced by pregnant individuals.
Texas Abortion Bills Draw Fire for Vague Exceptions as Women Like Ashley Brandt Fight for Clarity and CareBrandt and fellow plaintiffs argue that the new legislation still uses vague language that misleads patients and medical providers. The bills supposedly offer medical exceptions, but advocates say the wording, such as “reasonable medical judgment” and “serious risk of substantial impairment”—remains too ambiguous. They worry that this vagueness could still deter doctors from acting swiftly, fearing legal consequences under the looming threat of harsh penalties.
Proposed Bills Spark Confusion, Risk Reviving Old Laws, Offer Little Real Protection
The proposed bills, dubbed the “Life of the Mother Act,” aim to assure doctors they can act during medical emergencies without fearing prosecution. They remove the term “life-threatening” and include language allowing abortion if a pregnant person is at serious risk of death or impairment. However, physicians are also expected to act in a way that gives the fetus the best chance at survival, further complicating care in urgent cases. Critics argue that this could interfere with swift medical decisions.
One major concern raised by advocates is that these bills could inadvertently reactivate an 1850s abortion law, which penalizes anyone aiding an abortion. Unlike more recent laws that explicitly protect pregnant individuals from prosecution, the new bills do not include such protections, potentially opening the door to criminal charges against patients and those helping them seek out-of-state care. This risk contributes to a growing atmosphere of fear, isolation, and mistrust in the medical system.
Legal and medical experts remain skeptical about the bills’ effectiveness. While the Texas Medical Board supports the changes, legal scholars point out that the bills don’t sufficiently define what qualifies as a “serious” impairment or what constitutes “reasonable” judgment. Given the severe penalties involved—life imprisonment, massive fines, and license revocation—many believe the laws are still too risky and unclear for physicians to confidently provide necessary care.
Ultimately, many believe the proposed bills are more symbolic than transformative. Legal scholars like Elizabeth Sepper argue that the laws mostly reiterate existing interpretations and provide little practical relief. Doctors who already operate at the edge of legal boundaries are unlikely to change their practices.
Meanwhile, the threat of lawsuits from figures like Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton continues to discourage open discussion and access to care. Critics say the laws only create the illusion of progress, while the core issues remain untouched.