With the recent elections concluded, the focus now shifts to holding Texas officials accountable. Following a significant victory for Democrats in statewide offices, attorney general-elect Nathan Johnson announced that he will discontinue the practice of suing out-of-state doctors who provide abortion medication to Texas patients.
This marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle against Texas’ stringent abortion ban, which has severely limited access to the procedure for the past four years. Johnson’s decision to halt these lawsuits serves as a potential first step toward softening the restrictions imposed by the current ban, a move that could hinder the efforts of the anti-abortion movement.
Johnson emphasized his stance during an interview, stating, “The first thing I do when people ask me about abortion is point out that I’m not a legislator, and I can’t change abortion law. What I can do is cease using Texas abortion laws as an instrument of persecution and intimidation, harassment, and political showboating.”
Under former Attorney General Ken Paxton, Texas had been aggressive in enforcing the abortion ban, including lawsuits against physicians in other states that prescribe abortion medication. These legal actions have created a chilling effect, discouraging Texans from seeking access to these essential medications. Johnson criticized this approach, affirming, “I will not pursue the judicially absurd position that Texas law has extra territorial effect. I can honor other states’ shield laws.”
While this development may ease some barriers to obtaining abortion pills, a complete repeal of the ban is unlikely in the near future. Governor-elect Gina Hinojosa has indicated that overturning the ban is not a priority, as such a move would require bipartisan support in a state legislature dominated by Republicans.
Political analysts, including University of Houston professor Brandon Rottinghaus, suggest that Hinojosa could still have a substantial impact on the implementation of the law. She has expressed intentions to eliminate penalties for doctors performing life-saving abortions, although recent legislative measures have already offered some protections in those scenarios.
Rottinghaus noted, “She can influence how portions of the law are implemented and how certain exceptions are interpreted, along with other reasonable additional restrictions that might become law eventually.”
On the other side of the debate, anti-abortion advocates such as John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, express concerns about potential setbacks to decades of progress made under Republican leadership in limiting abortion access. Seago fears that Hinojosa’s administration may jeopardize funding for programs that aim to dissuade women from choosing abortion, such as the Alternatives to Abortion program, now called Thriving Texas Families.
Furthermore, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, which oversees this program, could see leadership changes that may affect how funding is allocated and the scrutiny of its private contractors. Seago is wary of Hinojosa’s potential influence over appointments within the agency.
The upcoming Sunset review process also poses a significant opportunity for Hinojosa to reshape agency priorities, including the potential reduction of funding for the Thriving Texas Families program. Additionally, the Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Review Committee, which has faced criticism for delays in reporting, will undergo a Sunset evaluation, raising further questions about its future direction.
Hinojosa may also have the chance to appoint new members to the Texas Medical Board, which could alter the guidance provided to physicians regarding their legal protections when performing life-saving abortions. The board’s previous guidance had faced backlash for not adequately addressing the nuances of medical exceptions in the law.
Despite Johnson’s announcement regarding the lawsuits against out-of-state doctors, Seago remains confident that other states will continue to challenge the provision of abortion medication. He also noted that Texas’s “bounty hunter” law, which allows private lawsuits against those who violate the state’s abortion ban, will likely remain intact in the upcoming legislative session.
Conversely, reproductive rights advocates, such as raven e. Freeborn, executive director of Avow Texas, are determined to push for comprehensive abortion access regardless of the Senate’s Republican majority. Freeborn stated, “We’re going for the most unapologetic vision of abortion access, which is abortion access without exceptions.” She emphasized the importance of seizing the moment to advocate for immediate change and is prepared for a prolonged battle, recalling how it took the GOP decades to impose their restrictions on abortion in Texas.
