--- title: "Texas — abortion law" description: "Abortion is banned in Texas from the moment of fertilization. The only legal exception is a 'medical emergency,' where a licensed physician decides using 'reasonable medical judgment' that the pregnant person has a life-threatening physical condition caused by pregnancy that risks death or serious…" type: "legislation" jurisdiction: "Texas" as_of_date: "2026-07-12" source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/legislation/tx.html" --- # Texas — abortion law _Texas · United States_ ## Overview **Near-total ban; mother exempt** Texas enforces a near-total abortion ban with a narrow medical emergency exception, backed by overlapping criminal, civil, and private-enforcement statutes. Abortion is banned in Texas from the moment of fertilization. The only legal exception is a 'medical emergency,' where a licensed physician decides using 'reasonable medical judgment' that the pregnant person has a life-threatening physical condition caused by pregnancy that risks death or serious impairment of a major bodily function. There is no exception for rape, incest, or fatal fetal anomaly. The pregnant woman herself cannot be criminally or civilly penalized under the state's abortion chapter — the law targets providers and helpers. Abortion medication is separately banned through an innovative qui tam private-enforcement law that targets anyone who mails, transports, prescribes, or provides those drugs into Texas. Multiple overlapping statutes (the 2022 trigger ban, the private-enforcement SB 8, and pre-Roe criminal laws still on the books) create a thicket of liability for anyone who performs, induces, or assists an abortion. > "A person may not knowingly perform, induce, or attempt an abortion." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002(a) **Legal analysis** Texas's primary operative ban is the Human Life Protection Act (HLPA), Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 170A, added by H.B. 1280 (2021) and effective August 25, 2022 — 30 days after the Supreme Court's judgment in Dobbs. Section 170A.002(a) provides: 'A person may not knowingly perform, induce, or attempt an abortion.' The sole exception, § 170A.002(b), requires that the person performing the abortion be a licensed physician who, 'in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment,' determines that the pregnant female has 'a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced.' SB 31 (2025), the Life of the Mother Act, amended the exception to clarify that 'life-threatening' means 'capable of causing death or potentially fatal,' that the risk need not be imminent, and that the physician may act before the patient suffers harm. The HLPA is enforced by criminal prosecution (felony), civil penalty actions by the Attorney General ($100,000+ per violation), and mandatory license revocation for physicians. The SB 8 Heartbeat Act (ch. 171, subch. H) remains on the books as an additional private-enforcement layer. Pre-Roe criminal statutes (Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. arts. 4512.1–.6) also remain as a fallback enforcement theory. The Texas Supreme Court in Zurawski v. State of Texas, No. 23-0629 (Tex. May 31, 2024) unanimously upheld the ban against constitutional challenge, construing the medical exception as adequate under the Texas Constitution. No federal court injunction currently restrains enforcement of the ban; the Fifth Circuit in Texas v. Becerra, No. 23-10246 (5th Cir. Jan. 2, 2024), held that EMTALA does not preempt Texas abortion law, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002(a), subsection (a), [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-170a/section-170a-002) · Zurawski v. State of Texas, No. 23-0629 (Tex. May 31, 2024), slip op. at 2, [Supreme Court of Texas](https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458610/230629.pdf)* ## At a glance Every machine-readable determination in the research document. Each value is derived from a sourced finding below. | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Legal classification | Total ban | | Gestational limit weeks | 0 | | Limit measured from | Fertilization | | Abortion currently available | Severely restricted | | Ban or limit enjoined | No | | Mother expressly exempt | Yes | | Mother prosecutable in practice | No | | Self managed abortion criminalized | No | | Abortion charged as homicide | No | | Fetal homicide law | Yes | | Fetal wrongful death action | Yes | | Personhood language in law | Yes | | Personhood contradiction | Yes | | Medication abortion distinct status | Yes | | Mailing pills banned | Yes | | Method bans | D and e, D and x | | Telehealth prescribing allowed | No | | Physician only law | Yes | | Provider max penalty | First-degree felony, 5-99 years or life imprisonment; $100,000+ civil penalty per violation; license revocation | | Helpers criminally exposed | Yes | | Travel assistance criminalized | Unclear | | Civil bounty law | Yes | | Shield state | No | | Waiting period hours | 24 | | State scripted counseling | Yes | | Ultrasound required | Mandatory display | | In person visits required | 2 | | Parental involvement | Consent and notification | | Judicial bypass available | Yes | | Spousal consent or notice on books | No | | Medicaid coverage | Hyde only | | Private insurance restricted | Yes | | State funding posture | Defunds providers | | Rape incest exception | No | | Exceptions present | Life, Physical health, Ectopic miscarriage carveout | | Major pending change | Yes | ## Definitions **Unborn child death at any stage** Texas defines 'abortion' as an act intended to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant, with explicit carve-outs for miscarriage management, ectopic pregnancy, and actions to save or preserve the health of the unborn child. Under Texas law, an abortion is defined as using or prescribing a drug, instrument, or any other means with the intent to cause the death of an 'unborn child' of a woman known to be pregnant. This definition explicitly excludes birth control or oral contraceptives. It also excludes three situations: actions taken to save or preserve the health of an unborn child, removing a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), and removing an ectopic pregnancy. This means miscarriage care, treatment of ectopic pregnancy, and procedures performed to save the unborn child are not considered abortion under Texas law. The definition turns on intent — the act must be undertaken with the specific purpose of ending the unborn child's life. > "'Abortion' means the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant. The term does not include birth control devices or oral contraceptives. An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to: (A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child; (B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or (C) remove an ectopic pregnancy." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 245.002(1) **Legal analysis** Tex. Health & Safety Code § 245.002(1) defines 'abortion' as 'the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant.' The definition contains three express exclusions: acts done with intent to '(A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child; (B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or (C) remove an ectopic pregnancy.' The term 'unborn child' in this context is not independently defined in Chapter 245, but the Penal Code § 1.07(a)(26) defines 'individual' to include 'an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.' The Texas AG's 2022 Post-Roe Advisory confirmed that the definition does not reach birth control devices or oral contraceptives. The ectopic-pregnancy carve-out means treatment for ectopic pregnancy is not an 'abortion' and falls outside the prohibition regardless of the medical emergency exception. IVF embryos outside the womb are not addressed by this definition, as the definition applies to a 'woman known to be pregnant.' *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 245.002(1), subsection (1), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/health-and-safety-code/health-safety-sect-245-002/)* ## Current status **Total ban since August 25, 2022** Abortion is banned from fertilization with a single medical emergency exception; clarification legislation (SB 31) took effect in June 2025 confirming the exception does not require imminent death. Since August 25, 2022, Texas has enforced a near-total abortion ban that makes it illegal to perform, induce, or attempt an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. The only legal avenue for an abortion in Texas is when a licensed physician, using reasonable medical judgment, concludes that the pregnant person has a life-threatening physical condition caused by pregnancy that places her at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed. A recent amendment (SB 31, effective June 20, 2025) clarifies that the life-threatening condition does not need to be actively injuring the patient, does not need to be imminent, and that the physician may act before the patient suffers harm. The law does not contain exceptions for rape, incest, or fatal fetal anomalies. The ban is in full force and not blocked by any court. > "A person may not knowingly perform, induce, or attempt an abortion." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002 **Legal analysis** The Human Life Protection Act (HLPA), codified at Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 170A (added by H.B. 1280, 87th Leg., 2021), took effect on August 25, 2022, which was the 30th day after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its judgment in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Section 170A.002(a) states: 'A person may not knowingly perform, induce, or attempt an abortion.' The sole exception appears in § 170A.002(b): the person performing must be a licensed physician who, 'in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment,' determines the pregnant female has 'a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced.' Section 170A.002(c-1), added by S.B. 31 (2025), provides that the physician 'may address a risk before the pregnant female suffers any effects of the risk' and that § 170A.002(b)(2) 'does not require that, before the physician may act: (1) a risk be imminent; (2) the pregnant female first suffer physical impairment; or (3) the physical condition has caused damage to the pregnant female.' Section 170A.002(c-2) defines 'life-threatening' as 'capable of causing death or potentially fatal' and clarifies that such a condition 'is not necessarily one actively injuring the patient.' This is a total ban measured from fertilization, not a gestational limit. The SB 8 Heartbeat Act (Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.204) still provides a pre-viability ban at ~6 weeks via private civil enforcement, though it is largely subsumed in practice by the total ban. The pre-Roe statutes (Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. arts. 4512.1–.6) remain on the books and are asserted by the AG as independently enforceable, though only the Dallas County DA is currently enjoined from enforcing them. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002, subsection (a), [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-170a/section-170a-002) · Updated Advisory on Texas Law Upon Reversal of Roe v. Wade, Tex. Att'y Gen. (July 27, 2022), page 1, [Texas Attorney General](https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/executive-management/Updated%20Post-Roe%20Advisory%20Upon%20Issuance%20of%20Dobbs%20Judgment%20(07.27.2022).pdf)* ## Law-in-effect vs. law-on-the-books **Fully in force; no active injunction** The Human Life Protection Act is fully enforceable; the Texas Supreme Court in Zurawski rejected a facial constitutional challenge and the Fifth Circuit held EMTALA does not preempt state abortion law. Texas's near-total abortion ban is in full effect. No court has issued an injunction blocking enforcement. The most significant legal challenge, Zurawski v. State of Texas, sought to clarify and expand the medical emergency exception; the Texas Supreme Court unanimously rejected it in May 2024, holding that the existing exception is constitutionally sufficient. Separately, the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January 2024 that the federal EMTALA law — which requires hospitals to provide emergency stabilizing care — does not override Texas's abortion ban; the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal. On the medication side, the new Chapter 171A (HB 7) took effect December 4, 2025, creating a private qui tam enforcement mechanism against those who provide abortion-inducing drugs into Texas; it is not currently enjoined either. > "Given this construction, we conclude that Dr. Karsan has not demonstrated that the part of the Human Life Protection Act that permits life-saving abortion is narrower than the Texas Constitution allows. Because the trial court's injunction departed from the law without constitutional justification, we vacate its order." > — Zurawski v. State of Texas, No. 23-0629 (Tex. May 31, 2024) **Legal analysis** The HLPA (ch. 170A) is the operative ban and is not enjoined. In Zurawski v. State of Texas, No. 23-0629 (Tex. May 31, 2024), the Supreme Court of Texas vacated a trial court injunction that would have barred enforcement of Texas abortion laws against physicians in specified circumstances, holding that the medical exception in § 170A.002 is constitutionally adequate and that the trial court's injunction 'departed from the law without constitutional justification.' The Court concluded that Dr. Karsan (a plaintiff physician) had standing based on an AG enforcement letter but that her facial challenge failed. The Heartbeat Act (SB 8) was challenged in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. ___ (2021), but the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block it pre-enforcement, and the law's private-enforcement structure has insulated it from effective judicial challenge. On EMTALA, in Texas v. Becerra, No. 23-10246 (5th Cir. Jan. 2, 2024), the Fifth Circuit affirmed a permanent injunction against HHS's EMTALA Guidance insofar as it would require Texas hospitals to provide abortions forbidden by state law; the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari (Oct. 2024). The pre-Roe statutes remain on the books; only the Dallas County District Attorney is specifically enjoined from enforcing them (see AG Advisory at note 2). The Medical Board rule at 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 163.12, effective July 2024, provides documentation requirements for physicians performing emergency abortions, requiring them to document within seven days the specific medical emergency condition, the major bodily function at risk, and the basis for the physician's reasonable medical judgment. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Zurawski v. State of Texas, No. 23-0629 (Tex. May 31, 2024), slip op. at 3, [Supreme Court of Texas](https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458610/230629.pdf) · Texas v. Becerra, No. 23-10246 (5th Cir. Jan. 2, 2024), slip op. at 5, [Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-10246-CV0.pdf)* ## Exceptions ### Life of the mother **Life exception; clarified 2025** Abortion permitted when a licensed physician, exercising reasonable medical judgment, determines the pregnant person has a life-threatening physical condition that risks death. Texas law allows an abortion if a licensed physician, using reasonable medical judgment, decides the pregnant person has a life-threatening physical condition caused by or made worse by the pregnancy that puts her at risk of death unless an abortion is performed. A 2025 amendment (SB 31) clarified that 'life-threatening' means capable of causing death or potentially fatal, and the physician may act before the condition becomes imminent or causes damage. The physician must document the specific condition, the bodily function at risk, and the medical basis for the decision within seven days. The law does not limit when in pregnancy this exception applies — it is available at any gestational stage. > "in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002(b)(2) **Legal analysis** Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002(b) establishes the exception. It requires: (1) the person performing is a licensed physician, and (2) 'in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced.' Section 170A.002(c) disqualifies a physician from invoking the exception if 'the person knew the risk of death or a substantial impairment of a major bodily function arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial impairment of a major bodily function' — i.e., the exception cannot be based on predicted self-harm. SB 31 (2025) added § 170A.002(c-1), providing that the physician 'may address a risk before the pregnant female suffers any effects of the risk' and negating any requirement of imminence, prior physical impairment, or prior damage. Section 170A.002(c-2) defines 'life-threatening' as 'capable of causing death or potentially fatal' and states such a condition 'is not necessarily one actively injuring the patient.' The Texas Medical Board rule at 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 163.12 requires the physician to document in the patient's medical record within seven days: the specific medical emergency, the major bodily function at risk, what placed the woman in danger, and the basis for the physician's reasonable medical judgment. In an emergency, the informed consent, waiting period, and parental notice requirements are waived under § 171.012(d) and § 33.002(c). *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002(b)(2), subsection (b)(2), [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-170a/section-170a-002) · 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 163.12, subsection (a), [Legal Information Institute (Cornell)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/texas/22-Tex-Admin-Code-SS-163-12)* ### Physical health **Physical health; serious risk only** Same exception as life: covers 'serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function,' clarified 2025 to not require imminence. The medical emergency exception in Texas law covers both life-threatening conditions and conditions that pose a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function. This means an abortion may be lawful to prevent serious and lasting damage to a major bodily function like reproductive function, even if death is not imminent or expected. The 2025 Life of the Mother Act clarified that a 'major bodily function' includes reproductive functions. The medical judgment standard here is the same as for the life exception — a licensed physician must exercise 'reasonable medical judgment.' > "poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002(b)(2) **Legal analysis** The physical health exception is part of the same § 170A.002(b)(2) medical emergency exception. The operative language is 'poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.' The term 'major bodily function' is not defined within the abortion statute itself but is defined in other Texas law and federal law to include reproductive functions. The SB 31 (2025) amendments apply equally to this prong: the risk need not be imminent, the patient need not first suffer impairment, and the physician may address the risk before damage occurs. The Texas Supreme Court in Zurawski acknowledged this exception as adequate, stating that 'Texas law permits a physician to address the risk that a life-threatening condition poses before a woman suffers the consequences of that risk.' The same documentation requirements under 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 163.12 apply. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002(b)(2), subsection (b)(2), [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-170a/section-170a-002)* ### Mental health **No mental health exception** Texas law provides no exception to the abortion ban for mental health conditions, including risk of suicide or self-harm, and expressly excludes self-harm-based claims. There is no exception in Texas law for mental health conditions. The law specifically says that the medical emergency exception cannot be used if the risk of death or substantial impairment is based on a claim that the pregnant person would engage in conduct — such as self-harm — that might result in death or impairment. This means that even if a pregnant person is suicidal, that cannot legally justify an abortion under Texas law. > "A physician may not take an action authorized under Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced, or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection (b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial impairment of a major bodily function." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002(c) **Legal analysis** Section 170A.002(c) states: 'A physician may not take an action authorized under Subsection (b) if, at the time the abortion was performed, induced, or attempted, the person knew the risk of death or a substantial impairment of a major bodily function described by Subsection (b)(2) arose from a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage in conduct that might result in the female's death or in substantial impairment of a major bodily function.' This explicitly closes the door on any mental health exception based on predicted self-harming conduct. The medical emergency exception is limited to physical conditions. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002(c), subsection (c), [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-170a/section-170a-002)* ### Rape **No rape exception** Texas provides no exception to the abortion ban for rape; the sole exception is for medical emergency. There is no exception in Texas law that permits an abortion because the pregnancy resulted from rape. Even in cases of sexual assault, abortion is prohibited unless the pregnant person meets the medical emergency exception. **Legal analysis** The Human Life Protection Act contains no exception for rape. Section 170A.002 lists a single exception in subsection (b), which requires a life-threatening physical condition. No other exceptions exist in the statutory text. SB 8 (§ 171.204) likewise contains no rape exception. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002, entire section — no rape exception present, [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-170a/section-170a-002)* ### Incest **No incest exception** Texas provides no exception to the abortion ban for incest. There is no exception in Texas law that permits an abortion because the pregnancy resulted from incest. The only legal basis for an abortion is the medical emergency exception. **Legal analysis** Same analysis as rape exception. No incest exception exists in § 170A.002 or any other Texas abortion statute. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002, entire section — no incest exception present, [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-170a/section-170a-002)* ### Fatal fetal anomaly **No fatal fetal anomaly exception** Texas law contains no exception for lethal fetal anomalies; the Texas Supreme Court in Zurawski declined to extend the medical emergency exception to cover fetal conditions incompatible with life. Texas does not allow abortion based on a diagnosis that the fetus has a condition incompatible with life. In the Zurawski case, several plaintiffs were denied abortions for pregnancies with conditions like anencephaly and acrania (where the fetus cannot survive). The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the medical emergency exception already covers cases where these conditions create a life-threatening physical risk to the pregnant person, but it does not cover abortions based solely on the fetal condition. > "The Center seeks (1) an interpretation of the Texas law that permits life-saving abortions and (2) to rewrite that law to change the circumstances in which Texas law must permit an abortion. Absent judicial adoption of the Center's preferred state abortion policy, it contends, the state's laws are unconstitutional." > — Zurawski v. State of Texas, No. 23-0629 (Tex. May 31, 2024) **Legal analysis** The Zurawski plaintiffs included women with pregnancies affected by anencephaly and acrania. The Texas Supreme Court acknowledged their situations as 'filled with immense personal heartbreak' but declined to rewrite the exception. The Court noted that the Legislature had amended the law to specifically permit abortion for one of the pregnancy complications presented (preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes / PPROM with infection risk). The Court's opinion treats the adequacy of the exception as measured by the risk to the pregnant woman, not the fetal condition. SB 31 (2025) did not add a fatal fetal anomaly exception. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Zurawski v. State of Texas, No. 23-0629 (Tex. May 31, 2024), slip op. at 4, [Supreme Court of Texas](https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458610/230629.pdf)* ### Ectopic pregnancy & miscarriage care **Ectopic and miscarriage excluded** Ectopic pregnancy removal and miscarriage management are not 'abortion' under Texas law and are not subject to the ban. Texas law specifically says that removing an ectopic pregnancy and removing a dead unborn child after a miscarriage are not considered 'abortion.' This means these medical procedures are not subject to the abortion ban and are fully legal. Similarly, actions taken to save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child are also carved out of the abortion definition. > "An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to: (A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child; (B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or (C) remove an ectopic pregnancy." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 245.002(1)(A)-(C) **Legal analysis** Tex. Health & Safety Code § 245.002(1) provides three express exclusions from the definition of 'abortion': acts done with intent to '(A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child; (B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or (C) remove an ectopic pregnancy.' Because these acts fall outside the statutory definition of 'abortion,' they are not within the scope of the prohibition in § 170A.002(a). The AG's 2022 Advisory confirmed this reading. This is a definitional carve-out, not an exception — the ban simply does not reach these procedures. The medical emergency exception thus operates as an additional backstop for cases where the fetal heartbeat is still present but the pregnant woman faces life-threatening risk. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 245.002(1)(A)-(C), subsection (1)(A)-(C), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/health-and-safety-code/health-safety-sect-245-002/)* ## Methods ### Procedural surgical **Banned with medical emergency exception** Procedural abortion is prohibited at all stages unless the medical emergency exception is met; D&E (dismemberment) and D&X (partial-birth) are separately banned by both Texas and federal law. Surgical or procedural abortion is banned at all stages of pregnancy in Texas unless the medical emergency exception applies. In addition to the general ban, Texas has a specific 'dismemberment abortion' ban (targeting the D&E procedure used in second-trimester abortions) and a ban on partial-birth abortion (D&X), though the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act also covers D&X nationwide. Since the total ban already covers all procedures, these method-specific bans serve primarily as additional enforcement layers and as statements of legislative intent. > "A person may not knowingly perform, induce, or attempt an abortion." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002(a) **Legal analysis** Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002(a) prohibits all procedural abortions subject only to the § 170A.002(b) medical emergency exception. Additionally, Texas Health & Safety Code § 171.0045 (enacted 2017) bans 'dismemberment abortions' — defined as knowingly dismembering a living unborn child and extracting it one piece at a time — which targets standard D&E procedures. This D&E ban was challenged and had been temporarily enjoined pre-Dobbs when it was an independent restriction, but post-Dobbs it operates as an additional prohibition within an already total-ban framework. Texas Health & Safety Code § 171.101 separately prohibits 'partial-birth abortions,' mirroring the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C. § 1531). Under the medical emergency exception, during a qualifying emergency, the physician is exempt from the D&E ban requirement of first causing fetal demise — the exception overrides the method-specific rules. The physician-only requirement of § 171.003 means only a licensed physician may perform a procedural abortion even in an emergency. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002(a), subsection (a), [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-170a/section-170a-002) · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.0045, section 171.0045, [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/health-and-safety-code/health-safety-sect-171-004) · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.101, subsection (a), [Texas Constitution and Statutes](https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov?tab=1&code=HS&chapter=HS.171&artSec=171.101)* **Editor's note.** The D&E ban was challenged and stayed pre-Dobbs; post-Dobbs its independent significance is mooted by the total ban, but it remains on the books. ### Medication **Banned; separate qui tam enforcement** Medication abortion is banned under both the general trigger ban and a dedicated 2025 law (HB 7, Chapter 171A) that creates private qui tam civil actions against anyone who mails, transports, prescribes, or provides abortion-inducing drugs into or within Texas. Medication abortion using drugs like mifepristone and misoprostol is illegal in Texas under two separate legal frameworks. First, the general abortion ban covers it because the definition of abortion includes using 'a drug, a medicine, or any other substance' to cause the death of an unborn child. Second, and more significantly, a new law effective December 4, 2025 (HB 7, codified as Chapter 171A) specifically targets abortion-inducing drugs. This law prohibits manufacturing, distributing, mailing, transporting, delivering, prescribing, or providing abortion-inducing drugs in Texas. It is enforced through qui tam actions — private lawsuits that any person can bring, with a minimum penalty of $100,000 per violation. The law explicitly exempts 'conduct a pregnant woman takes in the course of aborting or attempting to abort the woman's unborn child,' so the pregnant woman herself cannot be sued for obtaining or using the medication. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (June 2024) left the FDA's approval and regulation of mifepristone intact, but does not preempt state bans. > "Except as provided by Subsection (b) or Section 171A.002, a person may not: (1) manufacture or distribute an abortion-inducing drug in this state; or (2) mail, transport, deliver, prescribe, or provide an abortion-inducing drug in any manner to or from any person or location in this state." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171A.051(a) **Legal analysis** Medication abortion is doubly prohibited. First, under the HLPA, § 170A.002(a) prohibits any abortion, and the definition of 'abortion' in § 245.002(1) includes 'using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant.' Second, Chapter 171A (added by H.B. 7, 89th Leg., 2nd C.S., effective Dec. 4, 2025) creates a dedicated medication-abortion enforcement regime. Section 171A.051(a) prohibits any person from '(1) manufacture or distribute an abortion-inducing drug in this state; or (2) mail, transport, deliver, prescribe, or provide an abortion-inducing drug in any manner to or from any person or location in this state.' Critically, subsection (b)(2) exempts 'conduct a pregnant woman takes in the course of aborting or attempting to abort the woman's unborn child' — the mother herself cannot be sued under Chapter 171A. Subsection (b)(4) preserves conduct 'under the direction of a federal agency, contractor, or employee to carry out a duty under federal law, if prohibiting that conduct would violate the doctrine of preemption or intergovernmental immunity,' which may protect certain federal programs but has not been tested in court. Enforcement is private via qui tam actions under § 171A.101, carrying a minimum $100,000 statutory penalty per violation plus attorney fees. The law also contains anti-shield provisions purporting to override other states' laws that attempt to protect providers. On the federal front, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), preserved FDA authorization of mifepristone on standing grounds without reaching the merits, but the decision does not preempt state abortion bans. The FDA's REMS requirements for mifepristone remain in effect, but they regulate the drug's approval, not state law prohibiting its use. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171A.051(a), subsection (a), [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-171a/subchapter-b/section-171a-051) · FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), slip op. at 2, [Supreme Court of the United States](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf)* **Editor's note.** The practical enforceability of Chapter 171A against out-of-state shield-law-protected providers (e.g., New York, Massachusetts, Colorado) is unresolved; Texas purports to override shield laws, but other states refuse to cooperate, creating an interstate jurisdictional conflict. ### Self managed **Mother exempt; legally ambiguous** The pregnant woman is expressly shielded from criminal, civil, and administrative liability under the trigger ban, and the medication ban likewise exempts her own conduct; self-managed abortion is not independently criminalized, but pre-Roe statutes and aggressive prosecution theories create residual legal uncertainty. Under Texas law, a pregnant woman who ends her own pregnancy — for example, by obtaining and using abortion pills — is not supposed to be prosecuted or sued. The law explicitly says that the abortion chapter 'may not be construed to authorize the imposition of criminal, civil, or administrative liability or penalties on a pregnant female on whom an abortion is performed, induced, or attempted.' The new medication-abortion law (Chapter 171A) also explicitly exempts 'conduct a pregnant woman takes in the course of aborting or attempting to abort the woman's unborn child.' In practice, prosecutors have said the patient is rarely at risk of criminal penalties. However, Texas also has pre-Roe statutes on the books that made it a crime to 'furnish the means' for an abortion, and there is no equivalent explicit exemption in the Penal Code's criminal homicide provisions. This creates an ambiguous zone — the mother is protected under the abortion chapter, but aggressive prosecutorial theories under other statutes have not been entirely foreclosed by case law. > "This chapter may not be construed to authorize the imposition of criminal, civil, or administrative liability or penalties on a pregnant female on whom an abortion is performed, induced, or attempted." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.003 **Legal analysis** Section 170A.003 provides: 'This chapter may not be construed to authorize the imposition of criminal, civil, or administrative liability or penalties on a pregnant female on whom an abortion is performed, induced, or attempted.' This is an express construction clause, not an affirmative defense, and applies to the entire HLPA (ch. 170A). Similarly, SB 8's private enforcement provision, § 171.208, states that 'this subchapter may not be construed to authorize the imposition of liability on a pregnant female on whom an abortion is performed, induced, or attempted.' Chapter 171A, § 171A.051(b)(2), exempts 'conduct a pregnant woman takes in the course of aborting or attempting to abort the woman's unborn child.' However, these exemptions are contained within the abortion-specific chapters and may not extend to other areas of law. The pre-Roe criminal statutes (Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. arts. 4512.1–.6) criminalized 'furnishing the means' for abortion but did not expressly criminalize self-abortion by the mother. The Penal Code definition of 'individual' at § 1.07(a)(26) includes 'an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth,' but the homicide statutes (§ 19.06) exempt lawful medical procedures. A self-managed abortion is arguably not a 'lawful medical procedure,' creating theoretical exposure under criminal homicide law if a prosecutor were to charge the mother with homicide of the unborn child — though no such prosecution has been reported in Texas post-Dobbs. The Texas District and County Attorneys Association's post-Dobbs guidance states that the patient 'is rarely at risk of criminal penalties.' In practice, the mother exemption appears robust, but the theoretical gap between abortion-chapter exemptions and the Penal Code's fetal homicide provisions leaves a sliver of unresolved legal exposure that has not been tested in court. **Conflicting authority.** The express mother exemptions in Chapters 170A and 171A protect the mother from abortion-specific liability, but the Penal Code's fetal-personhood definition in § 1.07(a)(26) ('individual' includes 'an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth') could theoretically support a homicide prosecution of a mother who self-manages, unless the § 19.06 exemption for 'lawful medical procedures' is read to cover the mother's own conduct. No Texas court has resolved this tension. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.003, entire section, [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-170a/section-170a-003) · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171A.051(b)(2), subsection (b)(2), [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-171a/subchapter-b/section-171a-051)* **Editor's note.** The theoretical cross-application of the Penal Code's fetal homicide provisions to self-managed abortion is an unanswered question; editors should monitor for any prosecution that tests this boundary. ## Actors ### Who may perform **Licensed physician only** Only a physician licensed to practice medicine in Texas may perform an abortion; even in a medical emergency, the exception requires a licensed physician exercising reasonable medical judgment. Texas law requires that only a licensed physician may perform an abortion. This applies even in a medical emergency — the exception explicitly states that the person performing the abortion must be 'a licensed physician.' Advanced practice clinicians such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certified nurse-midwives are not authorized to perform abortions. The law does not specify hospital or ambulatory surgical center requirements for emergency abortions — the pre-Dobbs facility requirements (ambulatory surgical center for abortions at 16+ weeks) are effectively mooted by the near-total ban, except for procedures falling within the medical emergency exception. > "An abortion may be performed only by a physician licensed to practice medicine in this state." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.003 **Legal analysis** Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.003 provides: 'An abortion may be performed only by a physician licensed to practice medicine in this state.' The medical emergency exception in § 170A.002(b)(1) reinforces this by requiring that 'the person performing, inducing, or attempting the abortion is a licensed physician.' Section 171.004 separately provides that an abortion of a fetus age 16 weeks or more may be performed only at an ambulatory surgical center or hospital. In a medical emergency, the informed consent, waiting period, and parental notice requirements are waived, but the physician-only requirement is not waived. The Texas Medical Board has disciplinary authority over physicians who violate abortion laws under Tex. Occupations Code § 164.055, which requires the Board to 'take an appropriate disciplinary action against a physician who violates Section 170.002 or Chapter 171.' *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.003, entire section, [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-171/subchapter-a/section-171-003)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Criminal civil exposure #### Pregnant woman **Expressly exempt** The pregnant woman is expressly exempted from criminal, civil, and administrative liability under the trigger ban, the SB 8 private-enforcement law, and the medication ban — all three statutory schemes expressly shield her. Under Texas law, the pregnant woman cannot be criminally prosecuted or sued for obtaining an abortion. Three separate laws say this explicitly: the trigger ban says the entire chapter 'may not be construed to authorize' liability on her; SB 8 says the same for its private-enforcement provisions; and the new medication ban similarly exempts her own conduct. The only area of unresolved risk — theoretical, not tested in practice — is whether the Penal Code's broad definition of 'individual' to include an unborn child could support a criminal homicide charge against a woman who self-manages. No such prosecution has been reported. > "This chapter may not be construed to authorize the imposition of criminal, civil, or administrative liability or penalties on a pregnant female on whom an abortion is performed, induced, or attempted." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.003 *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.003, entire section, [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-170a/section-170a-003) · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.208(e), section 171.208(e), [Texas Legislature (SB 8 enrolled text)](https://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00008F.HTM)* #### Physician **Felony; $100K+ per violation; license loss** A physician who performs an abortion faces a second-degree felony (2-20 years), elevated to first-degree felony (5-99 years/life) if the unborn child dies, plus a minimum $100,000 civil penalty per violation, mandatory license revocation, and Texas Medical Board discipline. A doctor who performs an illegal abortion in Texas faces multiple layers of punishment. Criminally, it is a second-degree felony punishable by 2 to 20 years in prison, or a first-degree felony (5 to 99 years, or life) if the unborn child dies. Separately, the Attorney General can seek a civil penalty of at least $100,000 for each violation. The doctor's medical license must be revoked by the licensing authority. The Texas Medical Board can also take independent disciplinary action. In addition, SB 8 enables private citizens to sue for at least $10,000 per abortion performed after detection of fetal cardiac activity. > "An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if an unborn child dies as a result of the offense." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.004(b) **Legal analysis** Criminal: Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.004(b): 'An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if an unborn child dies as a result of the offense.' Under Texas Penal Code § 12.33, a second-degree felony carries 2-20 years imprisonment and up to $10,000 fine; a first-degree felony under § 12.32 carries 5-99 years or life imprisonment and up to $10,000 fine. Civil: § 170A.005 provides for a civil penalty of 'not less than $100,000 for each violation,' to be recovered by the Attorney General, who may also recover attorney fees and costs. License: § 170A.007 provides that 'a state licensing authority shall revoke the license, permit, registration, certificate, or other authority of a physician or other health care professional who performs, induces, or attempts an abortion in violation of' the Act. Texas Medical Board discipline: Tex. Occupations Code § 164.055 requires the Board to 'take an appropriate disciplinary action against a physician who violates Section 170.002 or Chapter 171.' SB 8 private enforcement: § 171.208(b) provides statutory damages of 'not less than $10,000 for each abortion' performed or induced in violation of the heartbeat ban, plus injunctive relief and costs/attorney fees. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.004(b), subsection (b), [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-170a/section-170a-004) · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.005, entire section, [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-170a/section-170a-005) · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.007, page 2, [Texas AG Advisory (citing statute)](https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/executive-management/Updated%20Post-Roe%20Advisory%20Upon%20Issuance%20of%20Dobbs%20Judgment%20(07.27.2022).pdf)* #### Prescriber pharmacist **Direct liability under medication ban** Non-physician prescribers and pharmacists face qui tam civil liability under Chapter 171A for prescribing, dispensing, mailing, or providing abortion-inducing drugs, with a minimum $100,000 penalty per violation, plus potential criminal exposure as accomplices under the general ban. Under the 2025 medication ban (Chapter 171A), anyone who prescribes, mails, transports, or provides abortion-inducing drugs into or within Texas can be sued by any private person for a minimum of $100,000 per violation. This reaches non-physician prescribers (such as nurse practitioners in states where they can prescribe), pharmacists who dispense the drugs, and mail-order pharmacies. The law explicitly does not prohibit the pregnant woman's own conduct. A pharmacist who fills an out-of-state prescription for a Texas patient could face liability. Whether a pharmacist or prescriber could also face criminal accomplice liability under the general abortion ban is a separate question not yet tested. > "a person may not: (1) manufacture or distribute an abortion-inducing drug in this state; or (2) mail, transport, deliver, prescribe, or provide an abortion-inducing drug in any manner to or from any person or location in this state." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171A.051(a) **Legal analysis** Chapter 171A, § 171A.051(a), prohibits any person from manufacturing, distributing, mailing, transporting, delivering, prescribing, or providing abortion-inducing drugs. Unlike the HLPA, which targets only those who 'perform, induce, or attempt an abortion,' Chapter 171A reaches a broader class of actors including manufacturers, distributors, transporters, prescribers, and anyone who 'provides' the drugs. The enforcement mechanism is qui tam civil action under § 171A.101, with a minimum statutory penalty of $100,000 per violation. The pre-Roe statute, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 4512.2 ('Furnishing the means'), criminalizes anyone who 'furnishes the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended' as an accomplice, punishable by 2-5 years imprisonment. This could reach pharmacists and prescribers if enforced. However, the AG's enforcement theory regarding the pre-Roe statutes has not been judicially tested, and only the Dallas County DA is enjoined from enforcing them. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171A.051(a), subsection (a), [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-171a/subchapter-b/section-171a-051)* #### Nurses and staff **Accomplice exposure; civil liability** Nurses, medical assistants, clinic administrators, and other staff who participate in or assist with an illegal abortion face criminal accomplice liability, civil penalties under the trigger ban, and qui tam exposure under SB 8 and Chapter 171A. Nurses, medical assistants, clinic staff, and hospital administrators who help perform or facilitate an illegal abortion can be prosecuted as accomplices to a felony. They can also be sued under the private-enforcement laws. The trigger ban applies to any 'person' who 'performs, induces, or attempts' an abortion — and Texas law on accomplice liability (Penal Code § 7.02) means anyone who aids, assists, or encourages the offense can be charged with the same felony as the physician. Under SB 8, any person who 'aids or abets' an abortion after fetal cardiac activity is detected can be sued for at least $10,000. Hospital administrators and clinic staff who approve or facilitate the procedure could face these exposures. > "knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.208(a)(2) **Legal analysis** Under Texas Penal Code § 7.02(a)(2), a person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by another if, 'acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense.' Thus, a nurse who assists a physician in performing an illegal abortion could be charged with the same felony as the physician under § 170A.004. Under SB 8, § 171.208(a), a private civil action may be brought against any person who 'performs or induces an abortion in violation of this subchapter' or 'knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise.' Under Chapter 171A, the qui tam action reaches anyone who manufactures, distributes, mails, transports, delivers, prescribes, or provides abortion-inducing drugs. The Texas Medical Board rule at 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 163.12 applies to 'an abortion' performed in compliance with all applicable laws, placing documentation obligations on the facility and its staff. The AG's Post-Roe Advisory stated the office was prepared to assist local prosecutors and pursue civil penalties against violators. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.208(a)(2), section 171.208(a)(2), [Texas Legislature (SB 8 enrolled text)](https://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00008F.HTM)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. #### Other helpers **Broad exposure for helpers** Anyone who assists, funds, drives, provides information facilitating, or otherwise aids an abortion faces criminal accomplice liability, SB 8 civil liability, and Chapter 171A qui tam exposure — though the mother exemption in each statute does not extend to third-party helpers. Texas law reaches a wide circle of people beyond physicians. A friend who drives someone to an abortion appointment, a parent who pays for the procedure, an employer who includes abortion travel in health benefits, or an organization that provides logistical support — all could face legal exposure. Under criminal law, anyone who 'aids or abets' a felony can be charged as an accomplice. SB 8 lets private citizens sue anyone who 'aids or abets' an abortion for at least $10,000. The medication ban (Chapter 171A) lets anyone sue people who mail, transport, or provide abortion pills. The mother exemption protects only the pregnant woman — it does not extend to anyone helping her. > "Whoever furnishes the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended is guilty as an accomplice." > — Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 4512.2 **Legal analysis** Criminal: Under Texas Penal Code § 7.02, any person who aids, solicits, or encourages the commission of a felony is criminally responsible as a party to the offense. Thus, a person who drives a patient to an illegal abortion, pays for it, or otherwise facilitates it could face felony charges if the prosecution can prove intent to promote or assist. SB 8 civil: § 171.208(a)(2) explicitly reaches anyone who 'knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise.' Chapter 171A: The qui tam action under § 171A.101 reaches 'a person who knowingly manufactures, distributes, mails, transports, delivers, prescribes, or provides an abortion-inducing drug.' Pre-Roe statutes: Article 4512.2 criminalizes anyone who 'furnishes the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended' as an accomplice, with a 2-5 year sentence. The pre-Roe statutes remain on the books and the AG asserts they are enforceable. The Center for Reproductive Rights notes that because 'abortion is now a crime in Texas, other criminal laws, including solicitation, conspiracy, and attempt statutes may also apply.' *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 4512.2, footnote 1, [Texas Attorney General (quoting pre-Roe statute)](https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/executive-management/Updated%20Post-Roe%20Advisory%20Upon%20Issuance%20of%20Dobbs%20Judgment%20(07.27.2022).pdf) · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.208(a)(2), section 171.208(a)(2), [Texas Legislature (SB 8 enrolled text)](https://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00008F.HTM)* ## Aiding & assisting ### Travel assistance **County-level travel bans; state law ambiguous** No Texas state statute explicitly criminalizes assisting travel for out-of-state abortion, but at least four counties have adopted ordinances restricting such travel within their jurisdictions using private-enforcement mechanisms, and a 2025 bill targeting travel assistance for minors was under consideration. Texas state law does not have a general 'abortion trafficking' or travel-assistance ban — helping an adult travel out of state for an abortion is not itself a crime under state statute. However, a handful of rural counties (Cochran, Goliad, Lubbock, and at least one other) have passed local ordinances that prohibit using county roads to travel for an abortion and allow private citizens to sue anyone who assists. These ordinances are legally dubious (interstate travel is constitutionally protected) and face legal challenges. The Texas Legislature also considered bills in 2025 to criminalize helping a minor travel out of state for an abortion without parental consent. **Legal analysis** No Texas state statute directly prohibits travel for abortion or travel assistance. However, local county ordinances in Cochran, Goliad, Lubbock, and Midland counties, passed in 2023, purport to restrict travel through unincorporated areas of those counties for the purpose of obtaining an out-of-state abortion, using private civil enforcement mechanisms modeled on SB 8. The constitutionality of these ordinances is highly questionable under the fundamental right to interstate travel, but they have not yet been struck down by a court. At the state level, a 2025 bill proposed making it illegal to help a minor travel out of state for an abortion without parental consent. Texas Senate Bill 33 (2025), the 'Woman and Child Protection Act,' prohibits governmental entities from entering into transactions with 'abortion assistance entities' that provide logistical support for out-of-state abortions — an indirect restriction targeting abortion funds and travel-assistance nonprofits. The general criminal aiding-and-abetting theory (Penal Code § 7.02) could theoretically apply if the travel assistance is seen as facilitating a crime, but since the abortion would occur in a different state where it is legal, the extraterritorial application of Texas criminal law would face significant jurisdictional and constitutional obstacles. **Conflicting authority.** The county travel-ban ordinances are widely considered unconstitutional under the fundamental right to interstate travel, but they remain on the books; no Texas appellate court has ruled on their validity. *Sources — Verify before publication · Medium confidence · Lubbock County Ordinance (Oct. 23, 2023), [Texas Tribune](https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/23/abortion-travel-ban-lubbock-county) · Tex. Gov't Code (SB 33, 89th Leg., 2025), enrolled text, [Texas Legislature Online](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB00033F.HTM)* **Editor's note.** Editors should verify the exact number and status of county travel-ban ordinances; at least Cochran, Goliad, Lubbock, and possibly Midland and others have adopted them. ### Funding **Exposed; SB 8 and SB 33 target funding** Paying for an abortion or abortion-related travel is subject to SB 8 aiding-and-abetting liability, general accomplice liability, and SB 33 (2025) prohibits governmental entities from transacting with abortion-assistance organizations. Anyone who pays for an abortion — or reimburses someone for abortion-related travel — can be sued under SB 8 as someone who 'aids or abets' the procedure. This includes employers who offer abortion-travel benefits and abortion funds that provide financial assistance. SB 33, passed in 2025, goes further by prohibiting Texas state and local government entities from doing business with any organization that provides logistical or financial support for abortion, including out-of-state travel assistance. This is designed to cut off indirect support for abortion funds. > "including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.208(a)(2) **Legal analysis** SB 8, § 171.208(a)(2), explicitly includes 'paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise' in the definition of actionable aiding and abetting, subjecting funders to a minimum $10,000 civil penalty per violation. SB 33 (2025) amends the Government Code to prohibit state and local government entities from entering into transactions with 'abortion assistance entities' — defined to include organizations that provide financial or logistical support for abortion services. The criminal accomplice theory under Penal Code § 7.02 could also reach funders, though this has not been tested. Employer-provided health plans that include travel benefits for out-of-state abortion face potential SB 8 exposure, though the practical enforcement barriers are significant. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.208(a)(2), section 171.208(a)(2), [Texas Legislature (SB 8 enrolled text)](https://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00008F.HTM)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Mailing pills **Expressly banned; qui tam enforcement** Chapter 171A (effective Dec. 4, 2025) expressly prohibits mailing, transporting, delivering, or providing abortion-inducing drugs into or within Texas, enforceable by private qui tam lawsuit with a minimum $100,000 penalty per violation. It is illegal to send abortion medication by mail, delivery service, or any other means into or within Texas. Anyone who does so can be sued by any private citizen for at least $100,000 per violation, plus attorney fees. This applies to out-of-state doctors, online pharmacies, aid organizations, and even delivery services that knowingly transport the drugs. The law exempts the pregnant woman's own conduct — she cannot be sued for receiving the drugs — but the sender faces significant liability. This law is designed to reach providers in shield-law states who mail pills to Texas patients. > "mail, transport, deliver, prescribe, or provide an abortion-inducing drug in any manner to or from any person or location in this state." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171A.051(a)(2) **Legal analysis** Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171A.051(a)(2) prohibits any person from 'mail, transport, deliver, prescribe, or provide an abortion-inducing drug in any manner to or from any person or location in this state.' Section 171A.051(b) exempts: First Amendment protected speech/conduct, conduct by the pregnant woman herself, conduct for specified lawful purposes (emergency, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, as defined in § 171A.002(a)(9)), and conduct under direction of a federal agency where preemption applies. Enforcement under § 171A.101 is exclusively through qui tam civil actions brought by private persons, with a minimum $100,000 penalty per violation, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs. The law contains anti-shield provisions (§ 171A.153–.155) that purport to deny recognition to out-of-state judgments and laws that would protect defendants, and allow Texas courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state providers who send pills to Texas addresses. The federal preemption question — whether the FDA's approval of mifepristone and its REMS preempt state bans on the medication — was not reached in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (standing dismissal), and remains unresolved. **Conflicting authority.** The enforceability of Chapter 171A against out-of-state shield-law-protected providers (e.g., in New York, Massachusetts, Colorado, California) creates an interstate sovereignty conflict; Texas claims jurisdiction via § 171A.153, but shield states refuse to honor Texas subpoenas or judgments. The FDA preemption question remains unanswered. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171A.051(a)(2), subsection (a)(2), [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-171a/subchapter-b/section-171a-051)* **Editor's note.** Watch for litigation testing the anti-shield provisions and potential Commerce Clause or Dormant Commerce Clause challenges. ### Providing information **First Amendment limits apply** Texas law exempts First Amendment-protected speech from its abortion prohibitions, but providing specific actionable information (referrals, instructions on obtaining illegal abortion) occupies a gray zone; no Texas court has addressed the post-Dobbs boundaries in the aiding-and-abetting context. Texas abortion laws generally carve out First Amendment-protected speech and conduct. So giving general information about abortion, providing a website link, or discussing options is likely protected. The medication ban explicitly says it does not prohibit speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment. However, providing specific information that directly facilitates an illegal abortion — such as telling someone exactly how to obtain illegal pills and paying for them — could fall into the aiding-and-abetting category. The line between protected speech and criminal facilitation is not clearly drawn and has not been tested in Texas courts post-Dobbs. > "speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171A.051(b)(1) **Legal analysis** Chapter 171A, § 171A.051(b)(1), expressly states that the medication prohibitions do not prohibit 'speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the states through the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or protected by Section 8, Article I, Texas Constitution.' The HLPA (ch. 170A) does not contain an equivalent express First Amendment saving clause, but general constitutional principles apply. SB 8, by contrast, allows suit against anyone who 'aids or abets' an abortion, and it is unclear whether providing specific actionable information — such as detailed instructions for obtaining illegal medication — would fall within the scope of unprotected conduct. The U.S. Supreme Court has historically protected the right to provide information about lawful abortion services (Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975)), but the analysis may shift when the underlying conduct is criminal in the forum state. No Texas post-Dobbs case has addressed this boundary. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171A.051(b)(1), subsection (b)(1), [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-171a/subchapter-b/section-171a-051)* **Editor's note.** The scope of First Amendment protection for abortion-related speech in a state where abortion is criminal has not been litigated post-Dobbs. ### Civil bounty **SB 8 bounty; Chapter 171A qui tam** Two private civil enforcement regimes exist: SB 8 (§ 171.208) allows any person to sue abortion providers and aiders for at least $10,000 per prohibited abortion, and Chapter 171A (§ 171A.101) allows any person to bring a qui tam action for at least $100,000 per violation of the medication ban; neither allows suits against the pregnant woman. Texas has two 'bounty' laws that let private citizens sue people involved in abortion. Under the older SB 8 (the 'Heartbeat Act,' in effect since September 2021), any person anywhere can sue anyone who performs or helps perform an abortion after fetal cardiac activity is detected, and the minimum award is $10,000 per abortion plus fees. Under the newer Chapter 171A (effective December 2025), any person can sue anyone who manufactures, mails, transports, prescribes, or provides abortion-inducing drugs, with a minimum penalty of $100,000 per violation. In both laws, the pregnant woman herself cannot be sued. These laws are designed to avoid court challenges by delegating enforcement to private citizens rather than state officials. SB 8 survived a pre-enforcement challenge at the U.S. Supreme Court because of this unusual enforcement structure. > "any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may bring a civil action against any person who: (1) performs or induces an abortion in violation of this subchapter; (2) knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.208(a) **Legal analysis** SB 8 (Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 171.201–.212): Section 171.204 prohibits a physician from knowingly performing or inducing an abortion after fetal cardiac activity is detected. Section 171.208(a) authorizes 'any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state' to bring a civil action against any person who 'performs or induces an abortion in violation of this subchapter' or 'knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion.' Statutory damages are 'not less than $10,000 for each abortion,' plus injunctive relief and costs/attorney fees. Section 171.208(e) expressly states the subchapter 'may not be construed to authorize the imposition of liability on a pregnant female on whom an abortion is performed, induced, or attempted.' The U.S. Supreme Court in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. ___ (2021), held that pre-enforcement challenges against state-court judges and clerks were barred by sovereign immunity, and against the Attorney General and state licensing officials because they lacked enforcement authority, leaving the private-enforcement structure largely intact as a practical matter. Chapter 171A (Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 171A.101–.159): Modeled on SB 8 but with higher penalties ($100,000 minimum per violation). Qui tam actions under § 171A.101 allow any person to sue on behalf of the state for violations of § 171A.051. The law includes anti-shield provisions (§ 171A.153) that purport to deny effect to out-of-state laws protecting abortion-medication providers. Both regimes are designed to survive constitutional challenge by removing state-official enforcement from the equation. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.208(a), section 171.208(a), [Texas Legislature (SB 8 enrolled text)](https://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00008F.HTM) · Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. ___ (2021), syllabus, [Supreme Court of the United States (Justia)](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/595/21-463)* **Editor's note.** A Texas state trial court declared SB 8 unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution, but that ruling does not bind other courts and was not appealed to a definitive appellate ruling; SB 8 continues to be enforced in practice. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ## Procedural requirements ### Waiting period **24-hour mandatory delay** A physician must wait at least 24 hours after providing state-mandated informed consent information and performing a sonogram before performing the abortion; this requirement is waived in a medical emergency. Texas law requires a pregnant person to wait at least 24 hours between receiving state-mandated information (including an ultrasound) and having an abortion. The 24-hour clock starts after the physician or the physician's agent provides the informed consent information and performs the ultrasound. In a medical emergency, this waiting period is waived. > "before any sedative or anesthesia is administered to the pregnant woman and at least 24 hours before the abortion" > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.012(a)(4) **Legal analysis** Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.012(a)(4) requires that 'before any sedative or anesthesia is administered to the pregnant woman and at least 24 hours before the abortion:' (A) the physician performs a sonogram; (B) the physician provides a verbal explanation of the sonogram results; (C) the physician makes the heartbeat audible if present; and (D) the woman receives the state-published informational materials. Subsection (d) waives these requirements if a medical emergency 'necessitates an immediate abortion' and the physician certifies the emergency in the patient's medical record. During a qualifying emergency, the physician must still comply with the physician-only requirement and must document the emergency after the fact under the Medical Board rule. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.012(a)(4), subsection (a)(4), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/health-and-safety-code/health-safety-sect-171-012)* ### Mandatory counseling **State-scripted; medically contested claims** Texas requires physicians to provide state-mandated counseling including the distribution of the 'A Woman's Right to Know' booklet, which contains information about fetal development, adoption, and parenting, as well as claims—contested by major medical organizations—linking abortion to increased breast cancer risk and adverse psychological outcomes. Before an abortion, the physician or a physician's agent must provide the pregnant person with state-produced materials called 'A Woman's Right to Know,' which includes information about the procedure, fetal development at two-week intervals, alternatives to abortion including adoption and parenting, and possible medical risks. The booklet has been criticized by medical organizations for including claims not supported by scientific consensus — specifically, statements linking abortion to increased breast cancer risk and to negative psychological outcomes. These claims remain in the state materials despite being rejected by organizations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the National Cancer Institute. > "the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion or the physician's agent informs the pregnant woman that: (A) the informational materials described by Section 171.014 are available" > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.012(a)(3)(A) **Legal analysis** Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.014 requires the Department of State Health Services to publish and periodically update informational materials that must be provided to every woman seeking an abortion. The statute specifies that the materials must include, inter alia, information on adoption services, medical assistance benefits, child support obligations, and 'the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two-week gestational increments.' Section 171.012(a)(1)-(2) requires the physician to orally inform the woman of the name of the physician performing the abortion, the particular medical risks associated with the specific abortion procedure, the probable gestational age of the unborn child, and the medical risks of carrying the pregnancy to term. The current booklet, 'A Woman's Right to Know,' published by DSHS, includes the statement: 'Some studies have found that women who have had an abortion may have a higher risk of developing breast cancer,' a claim the National Cancer Institute and ACOG have rejected. The booklet also includes statements linking abortion to adverse mental health outcomes, contested by the American Psychological Association. These requirements are waived during a medical emergency when 'necessitated by a medical emergency and there is insufficient time to comply.' *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.012(a)(3)(A), subsection (a)(3)(A), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/health-and-safety-code/health-safety-sect-171-012)* **Editor's note.** The 'A Woman's Right to Know' booklet is periodically updated; editors should verify the current edition for any changes to the contested medical claims. ### Ultrasound requirement **Mandatory sonogram and heartbeat audio** An ultrasound must be performed, the image displayed, the fetal heartbeat made audible if present, and the physician must give a verbal explanation of the sonogram — the woman may decline to view the image but not to hear the description. Texas law requires that an ultrasound be performed at least 24 hours before an abortion. The physician or the physician's agent must display the sonogram image, make any detectable fetal heartbeat audible, and give a verbal explanation of the results. The pregnant person can choose not to look at the image, but she cannot decline the verbal description or the audible heartbeat. These requirements are waived only in a medical emergency. > "the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion displays the sonogram images in a quality consistent with current medical practice in a manner that the pregnant woman may view them" > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.012(a)(4)(B) **Legal analysis** Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.012(a)(4) requires that, at least 24 hours before the abortion: '(A) the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion or an agent of the physician performs a sonogram on the pregnant woman on whom the abortion is to be performed or induced; (B) the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion displays the sonogram images in a quality consistent with current medical practice in a manner that the pregnant woman may view them; (C) the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion provides, in a manner understandable to a layperson, a verbal explanation of the results of the sonogram images, including a medical description of the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, and the presence of external members and internal organs; and (D) the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion or an agent of the physician makes audible the heart auscultation for the pregnant woman to hear, if present, in a quality consistent with current medical practice and provides, in a manner understandable to a layperson, a simultaneous verbal explanation of the heart auscultation.' Subsection (c) states that the woman may 'choose not to view the sonogram images' and 'choose not to hear the auscultation.' Subsection (d) waives the entire section in a medical emergency. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.012(a)(4)(B), subsection (a)(4)(B), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/health-and-safety-code/health-safety-sect-171-012)* ### In person visits **At least 2 in-person visits** The combined informed consent, ultrasound, and 24-hour waiting period requirements force at least two in-person visits: one for the ultrasound and counseling, and one for the procedure at least 24 hours later. Because the law requires an in-person ultrasound and counseling at least 24 hours before the procedure, a person seeking an abortion must make at least two trips to the clinic or hospital: one for the ultrasound, counseling, and informed consent, and another at least 24 hours later for the procedure itself. In a medical emergency, the waiting period and ultrasound requirements can be waived, reducing it to a single visit. > "before any sedative or anesthesia is administered to the pregnant woman and at least 24 hours before the abortion: (A) the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion or an agent of the physician performs a sonogram" > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.012(a)(4)(A) **Legal analysis** The combined effect of § 171.012(a)(4) (ultrasound must be performed at least 24 hours before) and § 171.003 (physician must perform the abortion) means that a minimum of two in-person visits is required: Visit 1 for the sonogram and informed consent delivery; Visit 2 (24+ hours later) for the abortion procedure. There is no statutory provision authorizing telehealth fulfillment of these requirements. In a medical emergency certified under § 171.012(d), the waiting period and sonogram requirement are waived, reducing the process to a single visit. The Texas Medical Board rule does not add additional in-person requirements beyond the statute. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.012(a)(4)(A), subsection (a)(4)(A), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/health-and-safety-code/health-safety-sect-171-012)* ## Minors ### Parental involvement **Consent plus 48-hour notice; one parent** An unemancipated minor must obtain the consent of one parent, managing conservator, or guardian, and the physician must give at least 48 hours actual notice before the abortion; both requirements are waived in a medical emergency with insufficient time. If a person under 18 is not emancipated, she must get written consent from a parent, managing conservator, or legal guardian before having an abortion in Texas. In addition, the physician must give at least 48 hours of actual notice (in person or by phone) to that parent or guardian. If the parent cannot be reached after reasonable effort, the physician may give 48 hours of constructive notice by certified mail. Both the consent and notice requirements can be bypassed by getting a court order (judicial bypass) or in a medical emergency where there isn't enough time to comply. > "A physician may not perform an abortion on a pregnant unemancipated minor unless: (1) the physician performing the abortion gives at least 48 hours actual notice, in person or by telephone, of the physician's intent to perform the abortion to: (A) a parent of the minor; (B) the minor's managing conservator; or (C) the minor's guardian." > — Tex. Family Code § 33.002(a)(1) **Legal analysis** Tex. Family Code § 33.002 requires that a physician may not perform an abortion on an unemancipated minor unless one of three conditions is met: (1) the physician gives at least 48 hours actual notice to a parent, managing conservator, or guardian and obtains the consent of that parent/guardian; (2) the physician receives a court order under § 33.003 or § 33.004 authorizing the minor to consent; or (3) the physician certifies a medical emergency and that there is insufficient time to provide notice. Tex. Occupations Code § 164.052(a)(19) classifies performing an abortion on an unemancipated minor without the required consent or court order as a prohibited practice subject to Medical Board discipline. Texas law differs from some other states in requiring both consent AND notice — many states require one or the other. The 48-hour notice period is separate from and in addition to the 24-hour informed-consent waiting period. Both one-parent and both-parent notice models existed during legislative history, but current law requires notice to only one parent (or the managing conservator or guardian). The requirement applies to all minors who are unmarried, under 18, and have not had their disabilities of minority removed. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Tex. Family Code § 33.002(a)(1), subsection (a)(1), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/family-code/fam-sect-33-002)* **Editor's note.** Texas uniquely requires both parental consent AND 48-hour parental notice, whereas most states with parental involvement laws require consent or notice, not both. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Judicial bypass **Bypass available; maturity or best interest** A minor may petition a court to waive parental notice and consent by proving she is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision, or that notice would not be in her best interest or may lead to abuse. A minor who cannot involve a parent can ask a judge for permission to have an abortion without parental notice or consent. She must prove either that she is mature and well-informed enough to make the decision on her own, or that telling a parent would not be in her best interest, or that telling a parent might lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. The court must rule promptly, the proceedings are confidential, the minor has the right to a court-appointed attorney and a guardian ad litem, and she can appeal if the judge denies her petition. The court may not be located in her home county if she chooses. > "The court shall issue an order authorizing the minor to consent to the performance of an abortion without notice to and consent of a parent, managing conservator, or guardian and shall execute the required forms if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the minor is mature and sufficiently well informed" > — Tex. Family Code § 33.003(c) **Legal analysis** Tex. Family Code § 33.003 provides the judicial bypass mechanism. Under § 33.003(c), 'The court shall issue an order authorizing the minor to consent to the performance of an abortion without notice to and consent of a parent, managing conservator, or guardian and shall execute the required forms if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the minor is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have an abortion performed without notification to or consent of either of her parents, a managing conservator, or a guardian; (2) notification and attempt to obtain consent would not be in the best interest of the minor; or (3) notification and attempt to obtain consent may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor.' The court must appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor. If the minor has not retained an attorney, the court must appoint one. The rules of the Supreme Court of Texas (Misc. Docket No. 99-9135) provide detailed procedures: the minor may file in any county, proceedings are confidential, the court must rule within two business days of the application (with a possible two-day extension), and if the court denies the application, the minor has a right to an expedited confidential appeal. § 33.004 provides a separate bypass for cases where the minor has been granted judicial authorization to consent due to abuse or neglect. The bypass standard follows the federal constitutional minimum established in Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979) (requiring a bypass mechanism) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (upholding bypass with judicial proceedings). *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Tex. Family Code § 33.003(c), subsection (c), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/family-code/fam-sect-33-003)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ## Paternal spousal rights ### Consent or notice laws **No spousal consent or notice law** Texas has no statute requiring spousal or paternal consent or notice for an abortion. Texas law does not require that a husband or the biological father be notified or give consent before an abortion. No such statute is on the books. **Legal analysis** No spousal or paternal consent or notice requirement exists in the Texas Health and Safety Code or the Texas Family Code. The pre-Roe statutes did not contain spousal consent requirements. The U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), held that spousal consent requirements are unconstitutional, and in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), a spousal notification requirement was struck down. Post-Dobbs, it is theoretically possible that Texas could enact such a law, but it has not done so. Texas does have an anti-coercion statute (Tex. Penal Code § 25.12) making it a misdemeanor to coerce a woman into having an abortion, which protects the woman from pressure by partners or family members. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence · Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), [U.S. Supreme Court (Justia)](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/52/)* ### Enforceability **Not applicable; no law on books** Texas has no spousal or paternal consent or notice statute to enforce; Danforth and Casey held such laws unconstitutional, but Dobbs reopens the question and Texas could legislate in this area. Since Texas does not have a spousal or paternal consent law, there is nothing to enforce. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down such laws in the past, but since Dobbs overturned Roe, the question of whether states could now enact spousal involvement laws is reopened. Texas has not yet done so. **Legal analysis** Danforth, 428 U.S. at 69-71, held Missouri's spousal consent requirement unconstitutional because the state could not delegate to the husband a veto power over the wife's decision. Casey, 505 U.S. at 887-98, struck down Pennsylvania's spousal notification requirement as an undue burden. Both rulings relied on the constitutional right to abortion recognized in Roe. With Roe overturned, the precedential force of Danforth and Casey's spousal-involvement holdings is uncertain, but they remain nominally good law. Texas has not enacted a spousal or paternal consent/notice law post-Dobbs. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Other paternal rights **Wrongful-death standing; no injunction power** A father may bring a wrongful-death action for the loss of an unborn child from fertilization, but cannot sue the mother, physician, or pharmacist for a lawful abortion; Texas courts have rejected father-initiated injunction attempts to stop partners' abortions. A biological father can file a wrongful-death lawsuit if someone else negligently or wrongfully causes the death of an unborn child — for example, in a car accident. But the law specifically says such a claim cannot be brought against the mother of the unborn child, a physician performing a lawful medical procedure, or a pharmacist dispensing drugs lawfully. Texas courts have also rejected attempts by fathers to get court orders stopping their partners from having abortions, even before the near-total ban went into effect. > "'Individual' includes an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." > — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.001(4) **Legal analysis** Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.001(4) defines 'individual' to include 'an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth' for purposes of wrongful death actions. Section 71.003(c) carves out: claims against '(1) the mother of the unborn child; (2) a physician or other licensed health care provider, if the death is the intended result of a lawful medical procedure performed by the physician or health care provider with the requisite consent; (3) a person who dispenses or administers a drug in accordance with law, if the death is the result of the dispensation or administration of the drug; or (4) a physician or other health care provider licensed in this state, if the death directly or indirectly is caused by, associated with, arises out of, or relates to a lawful medical or health care practice or procedure of the physician or the health care provider.' The abortion-specific carve-outs in subsections (c)(1)-(4) mean a father cannot sue for wrongful death arising from an abortion that was performed in compliance with Texas law (i.e., within the medical emergency exception). A father could theoretically sue for an illegal abortion, but the standing of a participant in illegal conduct is limited. Texas courts pre-Dobbs rejected father-initiated injunction attempts to prevent partners from obtaining abortions (see, e.g., Doe v. Smith, Tex. App. cases). There is no 'putative father registry' specific to the unborn child that would give a father a veto or notice right over abortion decisions. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.001(4), subsection (4), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/civil-practice-and-remedies-code/civ-prac-rem-sect-71-001)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ## Fetal personhood ### Fetal homicide law **Homicide at any gestation; medical-procedure exception** Texas Penal Code defines 'individual' to include an unborn child from fertilization; killing an unborn child is homicide under Chapter 19, but medical procedures performed by licensed providers with requisite consent are exempt. Under Texas criminal law, an unborn child at any stage from fertilization until birth is legally considered an 'individual.' This means that someone who kills an unborn child — for example, by assaulting a pregnant woman — can be charged with homicide. However, the homicide law specifically exempts 'lawful medical procedures' performed by a physician or licensed healthcare provider with consent, and the dispensation of drugs in accordance with law. This ensures that the homicide law does not reach abortions performed within the medical emergency exception. > "'Individual' means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." > — Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(a)(26) **Legal analysis** Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(a)(26) defines 'individual' as 'a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.' Section 1.07(a)(49) defines 'death' to include 'for an individual who is an unborn child, the failure to be born alive.' These definitions apply to Chapter 19 (Criminal Homicide). Section 19.06 provides: 'This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is: (1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child; (2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure; (3) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider as part of an assisted reproduction, as defined by Section 160.102, Family Code; or (4) the dispensation of a drug in accordance with law or administration of a drug prescribed in accordance with law.' Subsection (1) is an express mother exemption from the homicide chapter. Subsection (2)-(4) creates a safe harbor for lawful medical procedures including legal abortions. Thus, fetal homicide and the abortion ban are internally consistent: the homicide Chapter exempts lawful (emergency) abortions and the mother's own conduct, while applying to third-party violence against a pregnant woman that kills the unborn child. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(a)(26), subsection (a)(26), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-1-07/) · Tex. Penal Code § 19.06, entire section, [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-19-06/)* ### Wrongful death **Civil action from fertilization; abortion-carveout** Texas allows wrongful-death claims for an unborn child from fertilization, but expressly exempts the mother, physicians performing lawful medical procedures, and lawful drug dispensers from such claims. Under Texas civil law, the parents of an unborn child can bring a wrongful-death lawsuit if the child dies due to someone else's wrongful act — from the moment of fertilization onward. This gives a fetus legal standing as a potential plaintiff in civil court. However, the law has built-in protections for abortion-related care: no wrongful-death claim can be brought against the mother of the unborn child, a physician who performed a lawful medical procedure with consent, or a pharmacist who dispensed drugs according to law. This means that while the unborn child is treated as a person for purposes of third-party injury, the law preserves the legality of emergency abortions by carving them out. > "This subchapter does not apply to a claim for the death of an individual who is an unborn child that is brought against: (1) the mother of the unborn child; (2) a physician or other licensed health care provider, if the death is the intended result of a lawful medical procedure performed by the physician or health care provider with the requisite consent; (3) a person who dispenses or administers a drug in accordance with law, if the death is the result of the dispensation or administration of the drug; or (4) a physician or other health care provider licensed in this state, if the death directly or indirectly is caused by, associated with, arises out of, or relates to a lawful medical or health care practice or procedure of the physician or the health care provider." > — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.003(c) **Legal analysis** Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.001(4) defines 'individual' to include 'an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth' for the purposes of the wrongful death subchapter. Section 71.003(a) limits the subchapter's application to cases where 'the individual injured would have been entitled to bring an action for the injury if the individual had lived or had been born alive.' Section 71.003(c) provides the abortion-specific carve-outs described above. This framework is internally consistent: it grants civil personhood to the unborn child from conception for third-party torts, while preserving the legality of lawful medical abortions through express exemptions. A father could theoretically bring a wrongful-death claim for an unlawful abortion, but the mother cannot be the defendant, limiting the claim's practical viability. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.003(c), subsection (c), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/civil-practice-and-remedies-code/civ-prac-rem-sect-71-003/)* ### Personhood definition **Unborn child is a person from fertilization** Both the Penal Code and the Civil Practice and Remedies Code define an 'individual' to include an unborn child 'at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth,' creating comprehensive statutory personhood from conception. Texas law defines an unborn child as an 'individual' — a legal person — from the moment of fertilization, in both the criminal code and the civil code. This means that for purposes of homicide, assault, and wrongful death, the law treats a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus as a person with legal protections. This definition forms the foundation for Texas's abortion ban. However, the same codes also carve out the mother from criminal and civil liability and exempt lawful medical procedures, preserving the medical emergency exception while establishing fetal personhood for all other purposes. > "'Individual' means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." > — Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(a)(26) **Legal analysis** Two parallel statutory definitions create comprehensive fetal personhood in Texas. Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(a)(26): 'Individual' means 'a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.' Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.001(4): 'Individual' includes 'an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.' Neither definition is limited by viability or any other gestational marker — both reach back to fertilization. The Penal Code definition applies across all of Title 1 (General Provisions) of the Penal Code and thus affects all criminal offenses where 'individual' is an element. The Civil Practice definition affects all wrongful death and survival actions. There is no separate state constitutional definition of fetal personhood; the Texas Constitution does not contain a fetal-personhood amendment. The statutory personhood framework is internally consistent with the abortion ban (which treats the unborn child as the entity whose death the 'abortion' intends) but includes the statutory exceptions discussed above that preserve the medical emergency exception and the mother's exemption from liability. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(a)(26), subsection (a)(26), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-1-07/)* ### Contradictions analysis Texas's legal treatment of fetal personhood is internally consistent but conceptually layered. The Penal Code and Civil Code both define the unborn child as an 'individual' — a person — from fertilization, giving the fetus homicide-victim status and wrongful-death standing. At the same time, both codes contain express carve-outs that exempt the pregnant woman from criminal and civil liability for the death of the unborn child (Penal Code § 19.06(1); Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 71.003(c)(1)), and exempt physicians who perform lawful medical procedures (Penal Code § 19.06(2)-(4); CPRC § 71.003(c)(2)-(4)). The abortion ban itself (§ 170A.003) prohibits imposing any liability on the pregnant woman. This creates a regime where the unborn child is a 'person' for purposes of third-party violence, but the pregnant woman remains legally exempt from being treated as a perpetrator against that 'person,' and the physician acting within the medical emergency exception acts lawfully. The internal logic is that fetal personhood bolsters the state's interest in protecting unborn life, while the mother exemption reflects a separate policy judgment that the pregnant woman should not be criminalized. The Chapter 171A medication ban pushes this logic one step further, exempting the pregnant woman's own conduct in procuring abortion drugs (§ 171A.051(b)(2)) while exposing everyone else in the supply chain. The tension — if any — is philosophical rather than statutory: the law treats the unborn as a full person when harmed by strangers but not when the pregnant woman ends her pregnancy, a distinction that reflects the legislature's choice to sever the legal personhood of the unborn from the legal treatment of the pregnant woman's own conduct. ## Telehealth & interstate questions ### Telehealth prescribing **Telehealth prescribing prohibited** Telehealth prescribing of abortion medication to a patient in Texas is prohibited under both the general ban and Chapter 171A's specific prohibition on prescribing or providing abortion-inducing drugs to or from any location in Texas. Doctors cannot prescribe abortion medication via telehealth (phone, video, or online) to a patient located in Texas. The medication ban specifically prohibits prescribing or providing abortion-inducing drugs 'to or from any person or location in this state,' which covers telehealth prescribing regardless of where the prescriber is located. This applies even if the prescribing doctor is in another state where abortion is legal. > "prescribe, or provide an abortion-inducing drug in any manner to or from any person or location in this state." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171A.051(a)(2) **Legal analysis** Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171A.051(a)(2) prohibits any person from 'prescribe, or provide an abortion-inducing drug in any manner to or from any person or location in this state.' This plain language reaches a prescriber in any state who issues a prescription for mifepristone or misoprostol to a patient physically located in Texas at the time of the telehealth encounter. Section 171A.153 purports to deny recognition to out-of-state court judgments and laws that would shield such prescribers. Separately, under the general abortion ban, prescribing medication 'with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant' constitutes 'abortion' under § 245.002(1) and violates § 170A.002(a). The Texas informed-consent and ultrasound requirements of § 171.012 also effectively preclude telehealth fulfillment for in-state abortions, since they require an in-person sonogram and display of images. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171A.051(a)(2), subsection (a)(2), [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-171a/subchapter-b/section-171a-051)* ### Out of state travel **Travel permitted; practical obstacles** Texas does not prohibit a resident from traveling out of state for an abortion, but county-level travel-ban ordinances and the 2025 prohibition on governmental transactions with abortion-assistance entities create practical obstacles. Texas state law does not criminalize traveling to another state to obtain an abortion. It is legal for a Texas resident to leave the state and obtain an abortion where it is legal. However, several county-level ordinances attempt to restrict travel on county roads for this purpose, and the 2025 SB 33 prohibits state and local government agencies from doing business with organizations that help people travel for abortion. These measures do not make the travel itself a crime but can make arranging or funding the travel more difficult. **Legal analysis** No Texas statute criminalizes the act of an individual traveling to another state for an abortion. The constitutional right to interstate travel (Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)) provides a strong constitutional foundation that would likely bar a direct criminal prohibition on travel. However, the county-level ordinances in Cochran, Goliad, Lubbock, and Midland counties use private civil enforcement to penalize those who assist with travel through unincorporated county areas. SB 33 (2025) adds indirect pressure by restricting governmental transactions with abortion-assistance entities. The Texas AG has not publicly asserted any theory that would make out-of-state travel itself unlawful. The practical reality is that tens of thousands of Texans travel out of state annually for abortion care (estimated 35,000+ in 2023), primarily to New Mexico, Colorado, and Kansas, without Texas prosecutions for the travel itself. **Conflicting authority.** County travel-ban ordinances likely violate the constitutional right to interstate travel, but no appellate court has yet ruled on their validity. *Sources — Verify before publication · Medium confidence · SB 33, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025), enrolled text caption, [Texas Legislature Online](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB00033F.HTM)* **Editor's note.** The county ordinances are modeled on SB 8's private-enforcement mechanism to avoid pre-enforcement judicial review; litigation challenging their constitutionality is anticipated. ### Shield or hostile laws **Hostile; anti-shield provisions in Chapter 171A** Texas is not a shield state; the new Chapter 171A contains explicit anti-shield provisions that deny recognition to out-of-state laws and court judgments protecting abortion-medication providers, and assert Texas court jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants who send pills into the state. Texas is not a 'shield' state — it does not protect abortion providers or patients from investigations or lawsuits by other states. To the contrary, Texas's new medication ban (Chapter 171A) specifically targets shield laws in states like New York, Massachusetts, and Colorado, declaring that Texas courts will not recognize those states' laws or court judgments that protect abortion-medication providers. The Texas law asserts that anyone who sends pills to a Texas address can be sued in Texas courts regardless of where they live. This sets up a direct interstate legal conflict between Texas and shield-law states. > "a law of another state or jurisdiction that authorizes or purports to authorize a person to manufacture, distribute, mail, transport, deliver, prescribe, or provide an abortion-inducing drug in this state is against the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable in this state." > — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171A.153(a) **Legal analysis** Texas is a hostile jurisdiction in the interstate abortion context. Chapter 171A, §§ 171A.153–.155, contains anti-shield provisions: § 171A.153(a) states that 'a law of another state or jurisdiction that authorizes or purports to authorize a person to manufacture, distribute, mail, transport, deliver, prescribe, or provide an abortion-inducing drug in this state is against the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable in this state.' § 171A.153(b) provides that out-of-state court judgments 'inconsistent with the public policy of this state and the purpose of this chapter' shall not be recognized. § 171A.154 asserts personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants who violate § 171A.051 by sending drugs to Texas addresses. § 171A.155 allows Texas courts to stay proceedings pending resolution of related out-of-state litigation. These provisions are designed to nullify the protective effect of shield laws enacted by states such as New York (S.B. 1066), Massachusetts, Colorado, California, and others that protect their providers from out-of-state subpoenas, extradition, and adverse licensing actions for abortion care that is legal in the provider's state. The interstate conflict is unresolved: shield states refuse to comply with Texas subpoenas and have enacted laws forbidding their officials from cooperating, while Texas asserts its laws reach the conduct regardless. The constitutional questions — Full Faith and Credit Clause, Due Process (personal jurisdiction), and the Dormant Commerce Clause — have not been adjudicated. **Conflicting authority.** The anti-shield provisions of Chapter 171A have not been tested in court and conflict directly with the laws of multiple other states; the constitutional resolution is uncertain. *Sources — Verify before publication · Medium confidence · Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171A.153(a), [Greenberg Traurig (analyzing HB 7)](https://www.gtlaw.com/en/insights/2025/9/new-texas-law-creates-private-right-of-action-against-abortion-medication-providers)* **Editor's note.** Monitor for the first lawsuit testing Chapter 171A's anti-shield provisions against an out-of-state shield-law-protected provider. ## Funding and insurance ### Medicaid **Hyde Amendment only** Texas Medicaid covers abortion only in the narrow circumstances permitted by the federal Hyde Amendment: when the pregnancy results from rape or incest, or when the pregnant person's life is endangered. Texas's Medicaid program does not use state funds to cover abortion beyond what the federal Hyde Amendment requires. This means Medicaid will pay for an abortion only when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or when the pregnant person's life is in danger. Texas does not provide state-only funds to cover abortion in additional circumstances, even though some other states do. **Legal analysis** The federal Hyde Amendment, enacted annually as a rider to HHS appropriations, prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. States may use their own funds to cover abortion in additional circumstances. Texas has chosen not to do so. The Texas Medicaid program's abortion coverage is limited to the Hyde categories. Additionally, Texas has sought to exclude abortion providers from all Medicaid funding, not just abortion services. In 2013, Texas excluded Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid-funded Texas Women's Health Program, and in 2025 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (in a South Carolina case) that states may exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding. Texas has aggressively pursued this defunding strategy, removing Planned Parenthood from the Healthy Texas Women program and other state-funded health programs. *Sources — Verify before publication · High confidence · Hyde Amendment (annual federal appropriations rider), [KFF](https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/the-hyde-amendment-and-coverage-for-abortion-services-under-medicaid-in-the-post-roe-era/)* **Editor's note.** Verify current Texas Health and Human Services Commission policy on Medicaid abortion coverage, which should be in the Texas Medicaid Provider Procedures Manual. ### Private insurance **Banned; optional rider only** Texas prohibits all private health insurance plans from covering elective abortion as part of a standard policy; abortion coverage may only be purchased as a separate supplemental rider for an additional premium. Private health insurance plans in Texas — including employer-sponsored plans and plans sold directly to individuals — cannot cover elective abortion as part of their standard benefits package. If an insurer wants to offer abortion coverage, it must be sold as a separate, optional add-on policy (a 'rider') for which the consumer pays an extra premium. This means most people with private insurance in Texas do not have coverage for abortion, even if they would want it. **Legal analysis** House Bill 214, enacted in 2017 (85th Leg., 1st C.S.), codified at Tex. Insurance Code ch. 1218, prohibits health benefit plans from providing coverage for elective abortion except through a separate optional supplemental policy. The statute applies to all health benefit plans, including those offered by insurance companies, HMOs, and group hospital service corporations. The supplemental coverage must require a separate premium paid for entirely by the insured (not the employer). The law does not restrict coverage for abortion in cases of medical emergency (as defined in § 170A.002(b)(2)), or for treatment of an ectopic pregnancy. The statute represents one of the most restrictive private-insurance abortion coverage bans in the country. The federal Affordable Care Act does not mandate abortion coverage and allows states to restrict it on their exchanges. *Sources — Verify before publication · High confidence · HB 214, 85th Leg., 1st C.S. (2017), [Texas Legislature Online (via BillTrack50)](https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/887248)* **Editor's note.** Verify the current codification in the Texas Insurance Code (likely Chapter 1218) and confirm there have been no amendments. ### Exchange plans **ACA exchange plans restricted** ACA marketplace plans in Texas may not cover elective abortion; abortion coverage requires a separate supplemental rider, consistent with the general private insurance restrictions. Health insurance plans sold on the Affordable Care Act marketplace (healthcare.gov) in Texas cannot cover elective abortion. The same rule that applies to all private insurance in Texas — requiring a separate rider — applies to marketplace plans. **Legal analysis** HB 214 (2017) applies to all health benefit plans in Texas, including qualified health plans sold through the federal health benefit exchange. The ACA itself allows states to restrict exchange-plan abortion coverage (42 U.S.C. § 18023), and Texas has done so to the fullest extent permitted. The federal requirement for separate premium billing for abortion coverage applies, and Texas's rider requirement goes beyond it. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · HB 214, 85th Leg., 1st C.S. (2017), [BillTrack50](https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/887248)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### State funding of providers **Aggressive defunding of abortion providers** Texas has systematically excluded abortion providers and their affiliates from all state-funded health programs, including Medicaid, the Healthy Texas Women program, and other grants; SB 33 (2025) extends this to prohibit government transactions with abortion-assistance entities. Texas has a long-standing policy of cutting off all state funding to any organization that provides or supports abortion — even for non-abortion health services like contraception, cancer screening, and STI testing. Planned Parenthood has been excluded from Texas's Medicaid program, the Healthy Texas Women program, and other state grants since 2013. The 2025 SB 33 goes further by prohibiting any state or local government entity from doing business with organizations that provide logistical or financial support for abortion — including groups that help with travel. This means that even organizations that only help people access out-of-state abortions cannot receive state contracts, grants, or other governmental support. **Legal analysis** Texas's defunding strategy began in 2011-2013 with the exclusion of Planned Parenthood affiliates from the Women's Health Program (later replaced by the state-only Healthy Texas Women program). The exclusion withstood multiple legal challenges. In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court held (in a South Carolina case) that states may exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid under the Medicaid Act's 'free choice of provider' provision. SB 33 (2025) amends the Texas Government Code to prohibit state agencies and political subdivisions from entering into transactions with 'abortion assistance entities' — broadly defined to include organizations that provide financial assistance, travel assistance, lodging, or other logistical support for abortion. This includes abortion funds, practical-support organizations, and even organizations that provide information and referrals. The law is designed to cut off indirect support for out-of-state abortion access by defunding the infrastructure that facilitates it. *Sources — Verify before publication · High confidence · SB 33, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025), enrolled text caption, [Texas Legislature Online](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB00033F.HTM)* **Editor's note.** Verify the current codification of SB 33 in the Government Code and the operational status of the defunding provisions. ## Penalties | Actor | Offense | Penalty | Verification | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Physician (abortion provider) | Violation of § 170A.002 — performing, inducing, or attempting an abortion outside the medical emergency exception | Second-degree felony (2-20 years imprisonment, up to $10,000 fine); first-degree felony (5-99 years or life, up to $10,000 fine) if unborn child dies; civil penalty of not less than $100,000 per violation; mandatory license revocation; Texas Medical Board discipline | Verified at source | | Physician (SB 8 exposure) | Performing or inducing an abortion after detection of fetal cardiac activity (§ 171.204) | Private civil action: statutory damages of not less than $10,000 per abortion, plus injunctive relief, costs, and attorney fees | Semi-verified | | Aider/abettor (SB 8) | Knowingly engaging in conduct that aids or abets an abortion after fetal cardiac activity detection, including paying for or reimbursing abortion costs | Same as above: private civil action, minimum $10,000 statutory damages per violation plus injunctive relief, costs, and attorney fees | Semi-verified | | Medication provider/distributor (Ch. 171A) | Manufacturing, distributing, mailing, transporting, delivering, prescribing, or providing abortion-inducing drugs to or from any person or location in Texas | Qui tam civil action: minimum $100,000 statutory penalty per violation, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs; potential criminal accomplice exposure under pre-Roe statutes (2-5 years) | Verified at source | | Pregnant woman | Not criminally or civilly liable under abortion-specific statutes (expressly exempted by § 170A.003, § 171.208(e), § 171A.051(b)(2)) | None under abortion statutes; theoretical unresolved exposure under Penal Code fetal homicide provisions (§ 1.07(a)(26), § 19.06) has not been tested | Verified at source | | Accomplices (criminal) | Criminal responsibility as party to the offense of illegal abortion under Texas Penal Code § 7.02 (soliciting, encouraging, directing, aiding, or attempting to aid) | Same felony grade as the principal offense: second-degree felony (2-20 years), elevated to first-degree felony (5-99 years or life) if unborn child dies | Semi-verified | ## Recent changes - **June 24, 2022** — U.S. Supreme Court issues opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey; Texas's trigger ban (HB 1280/Human Life Protection Act) expected to take effect 30 days after issuance of judgment. *Sources — Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022), syllabus, [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf)* - **July 26, 2022** — U.S. Supreme Court issues its judgment in Dobbs, starting the 30-day clock for Texas's trigger ban. *Sources — Updated Advisory on Texas Law Upon Reversal of Roe v. Wade, Tex. Att'y Gen. (July 27, 2022), page 1, [Texas Attorney General](https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/executive-management/Updated%20Post-Roe%20Advisory%20Upon%20Issuance%20of%20Dobbs%20Judgment%20(07.27.2022).pdf)* - **August 25, 2022** — Human Life Protection Act (HB 1280, Chapter 170A) takes effect, imposing near-total criminal and civil ban on abortion in Texas. AG Paxton asserts pre-Roe statutes are also enforceable. *Sources — Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 170A, effective date notation, [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-170a/section-170a-002)* - **March 6, 2023** — Zurawski v. State of Texas lawsuit filed by five women denied abortions and two OB-GYNs, seeking to clarify and expand the medical emergency exception; trial court later grants temporary injunction. *Sources — Zurawski v. State of Texas, No. 23-0629 (Tex.), citing underlying filing (Clearinghouse summary), [Supreme Court of Texas](https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458610/230629.pdf)* - **October 23, 2023** — Lubbock County becomes the fourth and largest Texas county to enact an 'abortion travel ban' ordinance restricting travel through unincorporated county areas for out-of-state abortion. *Sources — Lubbock County Ordinance (Oct. 23, 2023), [Texas Tribune](https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/23/abortion-travel-ban-lubbock-county)* - **January 2, 2024** — Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms District Court ruling in Texas v. Becerra, holding that EMTALA does not preempt Texas abortion laws; HHS guidance requiring hospitals to provide abortion as emergency stabilizing treatment is enjoined in Texas. *Sources — Texas v. Becerra, No. 23-10246 (5th Cir. Jan. 2, 2024), slip op. at 5, [Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals](https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-10246-CV0.pdf)* - **May 31, 2024** — Texas Supreme Court unanimously rejects Zurawski challenge, vacates trial court injunction, and holds that the medical emergency exception is constitutionally adequate; the law 'does not require that a woman's death be imminent.' *Sources — Zurawski v. State of Texas, No. 23-0629 (Tex. May 31, 2024), slip op. at 3, [Supreme Court of Texas](https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458610/230629.pdf)* - **June 13, 2024** — U.S. Supreme Court decides FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, dismissing challenge to FDA approval of mifepristone on standing grounds; mifepristone remains available under FDA regulation but does not preempt state bans. *Sources — FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), slip op. at 2, [Supreme Court of the United States](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf)* - **June 21, 2024** — Texas Medical Board adopts final rule (22 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 163.10-163.13) providing documentation guidance for physicians performing emergency abortions, requiring documentation within seven days of the specific emergency condition and medical judgment basis. *Sources — 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 163.12, subsection (a), [Legal Information Institute (Cornell)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/texas/22-Tex-Admin-Code-SS-163-12)* - **October 1, 2024** — U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari in Becerra v. Texas, leaving the Fifth Circuit's EMTALA ruling as the controlling federal appellate authority in Texas. *Sources — Becerra v. Texas, cert. denied, No. 23-1076 (U.S. Oct. 2024), [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1076/324159/20240904170254820_23-1076_Becerra_v_Texas_Cert_Reply.pdf)* - **June 20, 2025** — Life of the Mother Act (SB 31) signed into law and takes effect, amending § 170A.002 to clarify the medical emergency exception: 'life-threatening' means capable of causing death or potentially fatal; physician may act before risk becomes imminent; no requirement of prior physical impairment or damage. *Sources — S.B. 31, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025) (amending Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002), subsection (c-2), [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-170a/section-170a-002)* - **June 20, 2025** — Governor Abbott signs SB 33 (Woman and Child Protection Act), prohibiting governmental entities from transacting with abortion-assistance organizations. *Sources — S.B. 33, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025), enrolled text caption, [Texas Legislature Online](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB00033F.HTM)* - **December 4, 2025** — HB 7 (Woman and Child Protection Act — medication provisions) takes effect, creating Chapter 171A, banning the manufacture, distribution, mailing, transportation, prescribing, and provision of abortion-inducing drugs, and creating a qui tam private civil enforcement mechanism with minimum $100,000 penalty per violation and anti-shield provisions. *Sources — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171A.051, effective date notation, [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-171a/subchapter-b/section-171a-051)* ## Pending changes ### Zurawski v. State of Texas (post-decision developments) (Litigation) **Status.** Texas Supreme Court rejected facial challenge May 31, 2024; potential federal constitutional challenge or as-applied challenge could follow A renewed as-applied challenge on behalf of specific medical conditions not adequately covered, or a federal constitutional claim, could further define the boundaries of the medical emergency exception; unlikely to substantially alter the regime given the unanimous Texas Supreme Court ruling. *Sources — Zurawski v. State of Texas, No. 23-0629 (Tex. May 31, 2024), slip op. at 3, [Supreme Court of Texas](https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458610/230629.pdf)* ### Challenge to Chapter 171A (HB 7) medication ban (Litigation) **Status.** Law took effect December 4, 2025; constitutional challenges anticipated on First Amendment, Commerce Clause, Full Faith and Credit, and Due Process grounds A court could enjoin the anti-shield provisions, the qui tam enforcement mechanism, or the entire Chapter 171A on constitutional grounds; alternatively, the law may be upheld, substantially curtailing medication abortion access in Texas and creating interstate enforcement conflicts. *Sources — Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 171A, effective date notation, [Justia (Texas Statutes)](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-171a/subchapter-b/section-171a-051)* ### County abortion travel ban challenges (Litigation) **Status.** County ordinances in Cochran, Goliad, Lubbock, and potentially other counties remain on the books; no appellate ruling on their constitutionality A court ruling could either strike down all county travel bans as unconstitutional violations of the right to interstate travel, or could uphold them, encouraging more counties to adopt similar ordinances and further restricting practical access to out-of-state abortion. *Sources — Lubbock County Ordinance (Oct. 23, 2023), [Texas Tribune](https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/23/abortion-travel-ban-lubbock-county)* ### 89th Legislative Session (2025) — additional bills (Legislation) **Status.** 2025 regular and special sessions concluded; potential future bills in 2027 session Anti-abortion legislators may seek to further restrict out-of-state travel assistance (especially for minors), strengthen enforcement against medication abortion, criminalize abortion more broadly, or propose a constitutional fetal-personhood amendment. Pro-choice legislators lack the numbers to advance protective legislation. ## Key authorities - **Human Life Protection Act (Trigger Ban)** — Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 170A (added by H.B. 1280, 87th Leg., R.S., 2021) _(Statute)_ · [law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-…](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-170a/section-170a-002) The principal near-total abortion ban in Texas, prohibiting abortion from fertilization with a single medical emergency exception, enforced through criminal felony charges, civil penalties, and license revocation. - **Texas Heartbeat Act (SB 8)** — Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 171.201–.212 (added by S.B. 8, 87th Leg., R.S., 2021) _(Statute)_ · [legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00008F.HTM](https://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00008F.HTM) The landmark private-enforcement abortion ban, allowing any person to sue for at least $10,000 per prohibited abortion; its novel enforcement structure survived pre-enforcement Supreme Court review and served as the model for Chapter 171A. - **Abortion-Inducing Drugs Ban (HB 7)** — Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 171A (added by H.B. 7, 89th Leg., 2nd C.S., 2025) _(Statute)_ · [law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-…](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-171a/subchapter-b/section-171a-051) Creates a dedicated medication-abortion enforcement regime with qui tam private enforcement ($100,000+ per violation) and anti-shield provisions targeting out-of-state providers and shield-law states. - **Abortion Definition and Exclusions** — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 245.002(1) _(Statute)_ · [codes.findlaw.com/tx/health-and-safet…](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/health-and-safety-code/health-safety-sect-245-002/) Defines 'abortion' as an act intended to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant, with express exclusions for miscarriage management, ectopic pregnancy, and acts to save the unborn child. - **Pre-Roe Criminal Abortion Statutes** — Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. arts. 4512.1–.6 (formerly Tex. Penal Code arts. 1191–1196, 1925) _(Statute)_ · [texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files…](https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/executive-management/Updated%20Post-Roe%20Advisory%20Upon%20Issuance%20of%20Dobbs%20Judgment%20(07.27.2022).pdf) The pre-Roe criminal abortion laws that were challenged in Roe v. Wade itself; AG Paxton asserts they remain enforceable and provide an additional criminal enforcement layer independent of the trigger ban. - **Life of the Mother Act (SB 31)** — S.B. 31, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025), amending Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002 _(Statute)_ · [law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-…](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-170a/section-170a-002) 2025 amendment clarifying the medical emergency exception: defines 'life-threatening' as capable of causing death, removes any imminence requirement, and allows physicians to act before the patient suffers harm. - **Mother Exemption Provision** — Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.003 _(Statute)_ · [law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-…](https://law.justia.com/codes/texas/health-and-safety-code/title-2/subtitle-h/chapter-170a/section-170a-003) Expressly shields the pregnant woman from criminal, civil, and administrative liability under the abortion ban. - **Zurawski v. State of Texas** — No. 23-0629 (Tex. May 31, 2024) _(Case)_ · [txcourts.gov/media/1458610/230629.pdf](https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458610/230629.pdf) The Texas Supreme Court's controlling interpretation of the medical emergency exception, holding it constitutionally adequate and that it does not require imminent death. - **Texas v. Becerra (EMTALA)** — No. 23-10246 (5th Cir. Jan. 2, 2024), cert. denied, No. 23-1076 (U.S. Oct. 2024) _(Case)_ · [ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-10246-CV0.pdf](https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-10246-CV0.pdf) Holds that the federal EMTALA does not preempt Texas abortion law, meaning hospitals in Texas are not federally required to provide abortion as emergency stabilizing treatment. - **Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson** — 595 U.S. ___ (2021) _(Case)_ · [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/595/21-463](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/595/21-463) U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed SB 8's novel private-enforcement structure to survive pre-enforcement challenge, establishing the blueprint for subsequent civil bounty laws. - **Fetal Personhood (Penal Code)** — Tex. Penal Code §§ 1.07(a)(26), 19.06 _(Statute)_ · [codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-1-07](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-1-07/) Defines 'individual' to include an unborn child at every stage from fertilization, establishing fetal personhood for purposes of criminal homicide while exempting the mother and lawful medical procedures. - **Wrongful Death (Civil)** — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 71.001(4), 71.003 _(Statute)_ · [codes.findlaw.com/tx/civil-practice-a…](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/civil-practice-and-remedies-code/civ-prac-rem-sect-71-001/) Establishes civil wrongful-death standing for unborn children from fertilization while exempting the mother, physicians performing lawful procedures, and lawful drug dispensers. - **Parental Involvement Law** — Tex. Family Code §§ 33.002–.004 _(Statute)_ · [codes.findlaw.com/tx/family-code/fam-sect-33-002](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/family-code/fam-sect-33-002) Requires both parental consent and 48-hour parental notice for minors seeking abortion, with judicial bypass available. - **Woman's Right to Know Act** — Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 171.012–.014 _(Statute)_ · [codes.findlaw.com/tx/health-and-safet…](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/health-and-safety-code/health-safety-sect-171-012) Mandates 24-hour waiting period, ultrasound, verbal description of sonogram, audible fetal heartbeat, and state-scripted counseling materials. - **Texas Medical Board Emergency Abortion Documentation Rule** — 22 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 163.10–.13 _(Regulation)_ · [law.cornell.edu/regulations/texas/2…](https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/texas/22-Tex-Admin-Code-SS-163-12) Requires physicians performing emergency abortions to document specific medical justification within seven days; the only official regulatory guidance on how to comply with the medical emergency exception. ## Research notes > Overall confidence: High. Analysis current as of July 12, 2026; research completed July 12, 2026. Primary-source verification needed for: (1) the exact codification of HB 214 (2017) in the Insurance Code for private insurance abortion-coverage restrictions; (2) the current Texas Medicaid Provider Procedures Manual language on abortion coverage; (3) the current edition of the 'A Woman's Right to Know' booklet for any changes to contested medical claims; (4) the exact number and list of counties with abortion travel-ban ordinances and their current enforcement status. The 2025 legislative session was extremely active; confirm that no additional abortion-related bills were enacted in the 2025 special sessions beyond those identified (SB 31, SB 33, HB 7). The pre-Roe statutes' continued enforceability is a live legal question that may be resolved by Texas appellate courts. Unresolved points: The exact number and current enforcement status of county abortion-travel-ban ordinances (at least four counties but possibly more); these are local ordinances not reflected in state codes and were identified through news reports. — Whether any Texas prosecutor has charged a pregnant woman under the Penal Code fetal homicide provisions for self-managed abortion; no such case has been reported, but this is a theoretical gap in the mother-exemption framework. — Whether the pre-Roe statutes (Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. arts. 4512.1–.6) have been utilized in any actual prosecution post-Dobbs; the AG asserts their enforceability but the Dallas County DA remains enjoined and other DAs may choose not to prosecute. — The specific Texas Insurance Code chapter (likely Chapter 1218) codifying the private insurance abortion-coverage ban; the research relied on bill summaries and secondary sources rather than the codified text. — Whether Chapter 171A's anti-shield provisions have been challenged in any court; as of the research date no such litigation had been initiated..