Estimated Time to Read: 11 minutes
The 89th Texas Legislative Session brought with it a renewed wave of activity around abortion-related policy. With Texas already enforcing one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, lawmakers returned in 2025 seeking to fine-tune enforcement, clarify exceptions, and bolster the state’s network of alternatives to abortion. Yet, even among Republicans, divisions emerged over how far new proposals should go. Several high-profile bills passed, others stalled despite leadership backing, and a few controversial measures became lightning rods of debate on the Texas House floor.
In this policy brief, we attempt to summarize what passed, what failed, and what it all means for the future of abortion-related policy in Texas.
Bills That Made It
Several abortion-related bills made it through both chambers this session, highlighting the Texas Legislature’s continued focus on restricting abortion access while reinforcing support for state-sponsored alternatives. These measures range from statutory clarifications to substantial funding increases for pregnancy resource networks.
Life of the Mother Act, Senate Bill 31
Filed by State Sen. Bryan Hughes (R–Mineola), Senate Bill 31 (SB 31) was crafted to clarify existing abortion prohibitions and give physicians greater legal certainty in life-threatening pregnancy situations. The bill reaffirms that doctors can intervene when a woman’s life or a major bodily function is at serious risk, without having to wait until the threat becomes imminent or the patient is already harmed.
The legislation provides new statutory definitions for terms like “life-threatening” conditions and “ectopic pregnancy,” helping to eliminate ambiguity. It also explicitly protects treatment for non-viable pregnancies, like ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages, from being classified as abortions. Importantly, SB 31 makes clear that physicians must, when possible, administer care that also gives the unborn child the best chance of survival, so long as doing so does not further endanger the mother.
Additionally, the bill ensures that legal claims against physicians operating under the law’s exceptions are treated as medical malpractice cases, not criminal acts, offering doctors legal protections under healthcare liability standards. It also mandates continuing education on Texas abortion law for attorneys and OB-GYNs, referencing key Supreme Court rulings like State of Texas v. Zurawski to guide interpretation.
Though the originally filed version proposed sweeping statutory revisions, the Committee Substitute narrowed its scope while preserving the core intent: to affirm legal protections for doctors using reasonable medical judgment in emergency scenarios. The bill passed the Senate unanimously and later cleared the House on a 129–6 vote, demonstrating strong bipartisan support for clarity without expanding access to elective abortion.
Taxpayer-Funded Abortion Travel, Senate Bill 33
Filed by State Sen. Donna Campbell (R–New Braunfels), Senate Bill 33 (SB 33) expands and sharpens existing prohibitions on the use of public funds for abortion-related activities. The bill amends Chapter 2273 of the Government Code to explicitly prohibit taxpayer-funded support for abortion access, including logistical or financial assistance, whether through government action or third-party partnerships.
To close perceived loopholes in current law, SB 33 introduces the term “abortion assistance entity,” covering individuals or organizations that help facilitate abortions through travel, lodging, meals, child care, or other support services, regardless of whether the abortion takes place in or outside Texas. The bill prohibits public funds from being used for such assistance and bars government entities from entering into contracts or providing resources that indirectly support abortion services.
Enforcement mechanisms were significantly strengthened. The bill authorizes the Attorney General, Texas residents, and local taxpayers to file civil lawsuits against violators, with courts empowered to issue injunctive relief and award attorney’s fees to plaintiffs. Notably, the bill waives sovereign and governmental immunity for governmental entities that violate the law and explicitly disallows attorney fee recovery for defendants, even if they prevail.
SB 33 does not introduce criminal penalties but mirrors the decentralized civil enforcement model seen in other recent abortion-related laws, such as SB 8 from the 87th Legislature. Supporters argue the measure reinforces taxpayer protections and limits the ability of local governments to indirectly subsidize abortion access, aligning with Texas’s broader post-Dobbs policy environment.
Though controversial, especially among municipal advocates and abortion rights organizations, SB 33 was a declared priority of Lt. Gov. Patrick and passed both chambers, landing on Gov. Abbott’s desk for final approval. It represents a continuation of Texas’s strategy to not just ban abortion within its borders, but also prevent its facilitation using public resources.
Guardrails for the Thriving Texas Families Program, Senate Bill 1388
State Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R–Brenham) filed Senate Bill 1388 (SB 1388) to reinforce the pro-life policy orientation of the Thriving Texas Families (TTF) Program by tightening definitions and eligibility standards for participating organizations. It builds on the foundation laid by SB 24 in the 88th Legislature, which converted the former Alternatives to Abortion program into the more expansive TTF continuum of care.
The bill broadens the definition of an “abortion services provider” to include not only those who perform abortions or distribute abortion-inducing drugs but also those who refer, facilitate, fund, or educate about abortion. It also defines “affiliate” to include entities with shared ownership, branding, or control with such providers, and formally prohibits both from receiving or administering state funds through TTF.
Importantly, SB 1388 refines these prohibitions in a more targeted manner than the originally filed version. The Committee Substitute narrowed the bill’s scope by removing categorical disqualifications for hospitals, government agencies, and behavioral health providers that may have unintentionally been caught up in the broader definitions. The final version instead focuses on establishing clear, enforceable standards that exclude organizations with direct or indirect ties to abortion services, without unduly burdening unrelated providers.
By codifying these definitions into law, SB 1388 offers HHSC improved clarity in oversight and enforcement while maintaining continuity for existing contractors who comply with the new standards. The bill reflects Texas’s continued effort to ensure that state-funded social services are not entangled with abortion providers in any form—legal, operational, or ideological.
The legislation passed both chambers and awaits the governor’s signature. Ultimately, SB 1388 strengthens the integrity of TTF and ensures its alignment with the state’s broader pro-life goals.
Notable Budget Amendments
As the proposed biennial budget for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 was being deliberated by the Texas House, State Rep. Tom Oliverson (R–Cypress) led the push to increase funding for Thriving Texas Families to $70 million per biennium, up from the originally proposed $40 million. State Rep. Caroline Harris-Davila (R–Round Rock) successfully amended Oliverson’s amendment to increase annual funding from $20 million to $35 million per year ($70 million for the biennium).
Though Democrat lawmakers expressed concern about the lack of medical oversight and Medicaid interaction, the budget, including the TTF increase, passed both chambers. The substantial funding boost reflects the Legislature’s continuing pivot from abortion access toward support for state-approved pregnancy resource centers.
The overall budget is awaiting Gov. Abbott’s consideration.
Bills That Did Not Make It
Despite a pro-life majority, not all abortion-related proposals survived the legislative gauntlet. Some of the most aggressive enforcement mechanisms and controversial legal expansions failed to clear key committees or procedural hurdles, revealing the limits of intraparty consensus on how far Texas should go.
Woman and Child Protection Act, Senate Bill 2880
Arguably the most high-profile failure, Senate Bill 2880 (SB 2880), authored by State Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola), sought to create a new civil enforcement regime targeting the manufacture, distribution, and facilitation of abortion-inducing drugs in Texas. The bill would have established Chapter 171A of the Health and Safety Code and prohibited the mailing, prescribing, or provision of such drugs to individuals in Texas, with narrow exceptions for medical emergencies and federal preemption cases.
SB 2880 offered two primary enforcement tools. First, it empowered any private citizen in Texas to bring civil lawsuits against individuals or entities alleged to have violated the law, following the precedent set by the 2021 “Texas Heartbeat Act.” Second, it allowed mothers or fathers of unborn children, or injured women, to sue for wrongful death or personal injury caused by illegal abortion drug distribution. The legislation did not authorize enforcement by state or local officials, opting instead for a private right of action model to minimize potential constitutional challenges.
The originally filed version of the bill went much further. It included felony criminal penalties, expanded civil liability for third parties (such as those aiding with abortion-related travel), and provisions giving the Attorney General concurrent jurisdiction in local prosecutions. It also attempted to impose fee-shifting measures against unsuccessful legal challenges to abortion laws and grant state actors broad sovereign immunity protections. These aggressive elements were stripped throughout the legislative process, which narrowed the bill’s focus to civil enforcement only.
Despite strong backing from pro-life advocates and a wave of public pressure late in the session, the bill stalled. After a delayed committee vote on May 23, the bill was never sent to the Calendars Committee by the House State Affairs Committee Chairman, State Rep. Ken King (R–Canadian). With impending deadlines, SB 2880 died without receiving a floor vote, underscoring the deep intra-party divisions and procedural choke points that can derail even well-publicized conservative priorities.
Equal Protection of Unborn Children, House Bill 2197
Filed by State Rep. Brent Money (R–Greenville), House Bill 2197 (HB 2197) proposed a fundamental shift in Texas criminal and civil law by recognizing unborn children as full legal persons from the moment of fertilization. The bill amended the Penal Code to apply homicide and assault statutes to unborn victims and repealed several statutory carve-outs that previously limited prosecution or civil liability in abortion-related contexts.
While it carved out narrow exceptions for life-saving medical procedures and spontaneous miscarriages, the bill’s broad scope alarmed even some pro-life stakeholders due to its potential to criminalize medical professionals and escalate already severe penalties. Civil liability protections were also removed, further exposing individuals and entities to wrongful death claims involving unborn children.
From a fiscal standpoint, the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) warned of uncertain but potentially significant impacts on the criminal justice system. New prosecutions, longer court proceedings, and increased incarceration could strain both state and local resources, especially in counties with high caseloads or prosecutorial zeal. Despite its ideological alignment with the state’s pro-life agenda, HB 2197 failed to advance out of the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, chaired by State Rep. John Smithee (R-Amarillo). Though it was originally scheduled for a public hearing on April 22, the bill was withdrawn from the schedule before the hearing took place.
Political Takeaways/Trends
Beyond the fate of individual bills, the 89th session provided a revealing look at how lawmakers are recalibrating their approach to abortion policy. While enforcement remains a priority, there’s also growing emphasis on state-funded alternatives and strategic messaging, alongside a recognition that legislative bottlenecks can hinder even high-priority items.
The 89th session illustrated the narrowing but still contentious space in which abortion policy now exists in Texas. Republican lawmakers largely coalesced around support for clarifying laws, increasing state support for pregnancy alternatives, and cutting off taxpayer resources to groups perceived as aiding abortion. Yet, internal disagreements stalled other bills like SB 2880 and HB 2197, revealing that while Texas remains a national leader in anti-abortion legislation, consensus on enforcement and implementation remains elusive.
Moreover, the prioritization of the Thriving Texas Families program, both through statutory and budgetary means, shows a strategic shift from simply banning abortion to building an infrastructure of state-sanctioned alternatives. Whether this strategy proves politically sustainable or effective in practice will likely be a focal point in the next session.
Conclusion
In sum, the 89th session saw Texas double down on its post-Dobbs approach, emphasizing alternatives over access, enforcement over exceptions. Yet, the mixed results of some proposals serve as a reminder that even in a deeply red state, navigating abortion policy remains politically complex.
Texas lawmakers passed several meaningful pieces of abortion-related legislation in the 89th session, but internal politics, time constraints, and committee bottlenecks left some key proposals on the cutting room floor. With legal clarity efforts like SB 31 and enforcement expansions like SB 33 now on their way to becoming law, and substantial funding now flowing to the Thriving Texas Families program, the state’s pro-life strategy continues evolving, though not without turbulence.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
