Photo by John Nelson, courtesy of All* Above All

Last week, Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and Diana DeGette (D-CO), proposed the groundbreaking Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act, or the EACH Woman Act.

The EACH Woman Act would overturn the Hyde Amendment, which was adopted shortly after Roe v. Wade in 1976 and bans the use of Medicaid funds for abortion. It would also repeal laws in 25 states that prohibit private insurers from covering abortion care.

After Roe, legislators like Henry Hyde couldn’t ban abortion outright. Therefore, they decided to limit who could access abortion by taking away funding for it. These legislators understood that without access, there is no choice. They knew they would be preventing poor people from accessing a constitutionally protected medical procedure. This is what the EACH Woman Act seeks to stop; truly making Roe the law of the land.

This is the first time congress members have brought forth comprehensive legislation to restore insurance coverage for abortion, instead of simply trying to fight off bills that further restrict access to reproductive health care.

In a statement on Facebook, Rep. Barbara Lee wrote, “I introduced a bill so every woman, no matter her income, can make the reproductive health decisions that are right for herself and her family.”

The EACH Woman Act has already been co-sponsored by 70 members in the House– including Texas’ own Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, and Rep. Beto O’Rourke–and would ensure that any person with health insurance through the federal government would have access to abortion care, regardless of their zip code or income.

Currently, if you’re too poor to afford an abortion or have insurance in a state that strictly restricts abortion coverage, people either don’t get an abortion or they find another way to get one, oftentimes finding dangerous means to do so.

Banning abortion coverage through Medicaid has not made abortion disappear. As Rep. Schakowsky stated, “Roe v. Wade wasn’t the beginning of abortion–it was the end of women dying from abortions.” Rather, it was supposed to be.

Restrictions on safe abortion have become widespread across the US, leaving millions of people with insurmountable barriers to care, disproportionately affecting women of color and low income women.

“Latinas and other women of color are more likely to experience an unintended pregnancy and less likely to pay for an abortion out of pocket,” said Jessica González-Rojas, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, one in four women who are on Medicaid and cannot afford an abortion are forced to carry their pregnancy to term. Those who are unable to access abortion care are three times more likely to fall into poverty than those who can afford it.

For those who argue that most people do not want taxpayer dollars to go towards abortion care, the data says otherwise.

A survey conducted by Hart Research Associates found that 56% of voters “support a bill that would require Medicaid to cover all pregnancy-related care, including abortion.”

The survey also concluded that three in four voters, including 62% of Republicans, agreed that “as long as abortion is legal, the amount of money a woman has or does not have should not prevent her from being able to have an abortion.”

The EACH Woman Act reflects not only the policy changes voters would like to see, but also make access to reproductive health care a reality for millions of people and allow them to take control of their future.

“Each and every day, the rights of women are under attack in America – today, we push back because every person has a right to health care. This legislation would ensure that every woman can access ALL of her health care options, regardless of how much money she earns or where she lives,” said Congresswoman Barbara Lee. “Regardless of how someone personally feels about abortion, none of us, especially elected officials, should be interfering with a woman’s right to make her own health care decision just because she is poor.”

“Graciela’s family lived in a tiny town—her step-father worked for the police department and everyone knew everyone. Her step-father was physically abusive to both Graciela, her mother and her two younger siblings.

“We can’t report anything to the police about what he does to us,” Graciela said. “He’ll just hurt us more.”

Graciela was terrified of what he might do if he found out she was pregnant, and she didn’t think it was right to bring a baby into her violent home.”

This is one of many true stories from Janes who have called the hotline in Texas which provides legal assistance to pregnant minors. 

“Janes” on the Capitol steps. Photo by Heather Busby

Over the weekend, activists clad in hospital gowns gathered at the Texas Capitol to protest a bill that would strip a vital protection for some of the most vulnerable in Texas–pregnant minors.

Under current law, a person under the age of 18 cannot get an abortion without the consent of a parent or legal guardian. Most teens who get abortions are able to do so with consent from their parents, but for a small number–between 200 and 300–this is simply not an option. These minors are called Janes.

In 1999, judicial bypass was adopted by the state of Texas with bipartisan support, and it allows a judge to grant Janes abortion access without the notification or consent of the parent(s).

If a Jane is in danger of facing physical, sexual, or emotional abuse as a result of notifying their parent, or has no parent to give consent, judicial bypass is in place to help them.

HB 3994, authored by Rep. Geanie Morrison (R-Victoria), would alter the judicial bypass system, making abortion for minors incredibly difficult to access.

Morrison’s bill would add the following restrictions:

• Requires minors to provide “clear and convincing” evidence that obtaining consent from a parent could put them in harms way, increasing the burden of proof. The original language in the law requires only a “preponderance of evidence.”
• Requires minors to file their applications for judicial bypass with a judge in their home county, unless the county has a population under 10,000, or the county in which the abortion provider is located. The current law allows minors to file applications in any county.
• Requires doctors to ask any person seeking an abortion for a government-issued ID. The doctor can still perform the abortion without an ID, but will then be required to report it to DSHS.
• Requires doctors to notify the parents if they perform an abortion on a minor in the event of a medical emergency.
• Extends the time frame for judges to rule on a case from two days to five.
• States that if the judge fails to rule on the bypass request within those five days, that means the request is denied. The current law states that the bypass is considered approved if a judge does not rule.
• Requires county clerks to make public the names of judges who grant bypasses, removing the confidentiality of this system.

Some proponents have stated this bill will close up “loopholes” in the current law. The Texas Alliance for Life, which worked closely in drafting this legislation, claims it will protect parental rights. During debate on the House floor, Morrison argued, “It would be traumatic for a teen to have an abortion without her parents there.” Some have even gone so far as to claim these minors are purposefully going through the court system just to lie to their kind, loving parents.

Anti-abortion politicians have stooped so low in their attempt to eradicate safe, legal abortion access they have blinded themselves to the reality of who these laws were created to protect, even if it means putting teens, sometimes even children, in unconscionable situations. Legislators who drafted HB 3994 did not consult organizations like Jane’s Due Process, which provide legal representation to Janes seeking a judicial bypass.

“Janes” in the Capitol rotunda. Signs read “Age 15, Undocumented,” “Age 15, Incest,” “Age 14, Rape Survivor.” Photo by Heather Busby

One “Jane” activist explained this is exactly why the #HereforJaneTX movement was launched.

“It is time to stand up and elevate the untold stories of Janes across Texas. Each Jane is different, and every reason they need help is valid.”

She and other “Jane” activists stood in the Capitol holding signs with the ages and circumstances of real Janes who have used the current judicial bypass system.

The reasons Janes need this system are numerous. Often times these minors face severe abuse at home, or their parents may be deceased, incarcerated, or are abusing drugs and simply aren’t around. Some Janes are survivors of rape or incest, homeless, or are undocumented.

Without an effective, expeditious judicial bypass system, Janes in Texas will be left with few options and more vulnerable than ever.

To learn more about this legislation and ways to take action through this grassroots movement, visit the #HereForJaneTX website. For more information about the judicial bypass process, visit Jane’s Due Process, a non-profit which provides legal representation to pregnant minors.

Last week, the Texas Senate voted 21-10 to eliminate coverage for abortion care through insurance plans paid for through the federal health care exchange and offered through private insurance.

The bill’s author, Senator Larry Taylor (R-Friendswood), argued that its purpose is to prevent people who are against abortion from having to pay for it.

According to Sen. Taylor, women can still get abortions, “they’ll just have to come up with another means to pay for it other than having all the people across the state of Texas who buy insurance being forced to pay for something they don’t believe in or agree with.”

If abortion care is no longer available through insurance plans, it is unlikely insurance companies would offer supplemental coverage. Even if it is made available, it would be incredibly expensive, putting abortion access out of reach for those who need it most.

Sam Richardson, assistant professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, told the Dallas Morning News insurance companies would “need to price this coverage at a pretty high level because the only people that would buy it are people who think that they might want to get an abortion at some point.”

Sen. Taylor’s bill would allow insurance companies to provide abortion care only if it would save the woman’s life or “prevent substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” Risks to mental health would not be covered, and there are no exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

When Sen. Sylvia Garcia (D-Houston) proposed an amendment to make an exception and allow insurance providers to cover abortion in cases of assault, it was voted down by Senate Republicans.

“It is wrong for the Texas Legislature to take away insurance coverage for a legal medical procedure. It is particularly disgusting that anti-choice members of the Texas Senate refused to create an exception for survivors of sexual assault and incest or for families facing the tragedy of a wanted pregnancy that has gone wrong,” said Heather Busby, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas. “The Texas Legislature should not add to tragedy by forcing people in these circumstances to pay for abortions out of pocket.”

Sen. Taylor’s bill is set to be heard by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives this week, where it will most likely pass. The House has already passed a similar bill that prohibits insurance coverage for abortion in the federal health care exchange.

By removing abortion coverage from insurance plans, legislators are taking away one of the few existing options for Texans who need to access legal abortion care.

In 1976 Congress passed a legislative provision known as the Hyde Amendment, prohibiting the use of federal Medicaid funding for abortion. Henry Hyde, the Illinois Republican who proposed the amendment, said, “I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the… Medicaid bill.”

According to the ACLU, 15 states have already passed measures prohibiting abortion coverage in federal insurance plans, and 10 states ban abortion coverage in all health plans. These bills are how legislators are ensuring no one can afford and, by extension, access abortion, just as Henry Hyde envisioned.

Over the last week, comments have been flooding the Facebook page of one of Houston’s beloved breweries, Saint Arnold Brewing Company, because a ‘Men for Choice’ event will be held there later this spring. Texas Right to Life, an organization that wants doctors to tell women that abortions can be reversed, published a blog post encouraging people to harass the brewery for renting their space:

Saint Arnold’s has respectfully replied to many of the angry comments, explaining that this event is simply a neutral business transaction, not a political statement by the brewery.

“To be clear, the is a rental situation only. We are not picking sides on this issue but feel like this group has every right to rent the brewery just as a pro-life group or a church or a law firm or a private birthday party would,” said Lennie Ambrose, the Marketing and Events Director for Saint Arnold.

“We have hundreds of events here every year and have never wanted to try to regulate which ones can pay full price to rent our facility. Saint Arnold is about community and we understand that there are vastly different viewpoints within our fan and customer base so we try to be as inclusive as possible to all of them. We in fact do have many Christian and religious groups rent the brewery and gather in fellowship over a great beer.”

The level of vitriol directed at Saint Arnold’s for simply opening it’s doors to the public is unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected.

“We have had pro-choice groups rent the brewery before and have had a few emails and calls here and there, but nothing on this level,” Mr. Ambrose added.

“The online harassment we’ve seen this week encouraged by Texas Right to Life is nothing new from the anti-choice movement,” said Heather Busby, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas. “The anti-choice movement has always relied on bully tactics, and those tactics have only escalated and intensified as access to abortion clinics has been drastically reduced in Texas. These tactics go beyond online harassment—anti-choice activists are trained to stalk abortion clinic staff and patients in an attempt to harass patients out of their decision to have an abortion and to scare staff into quitting their jobs.”

As a result of the harassment, supporters of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas and Saint Arnold have started chiming in, burying the negative comments:

If you’d like to show your support for NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, get your ticket to the Houston Men for Choice event. Don’t forget to drink lots of Saint Arnold and continue supporting our local breweries for treating everyone fairly and equally.

The Texas Women’s Health Progam (WHP) was initiated in 2024 as a joint federal and state service to provide checkups and birth control, to low-income, uninsured women who are not pregnant.  The WHP covers preventive care and contraception, including a yearly examination with screening for breast and cervical cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, tuberculosis, and sexually transmitted diseases.  It also covers education and counseling about family planning, including natural family planning and abstinence.  In 2024, legislators adopted Texas Right to Life’s language to legally clarify that abortion providers and affiliates including Planned Parenthood were barred from participation in the program.  Planned Parenthood lawyers looked to the courts for an injunction, but were denied allowing the State of Texas to proceed with the new rules.

Since the WHP’s inception, more than 235,000 Texas women have received family planning services.  Previously a joint federal-state program, the federal funds had matched nine dollars to every one dollar doled out by the state before the new rules.  The program had been expanded to agencies that provide a wide range of services, serve a broader population, and are not involved in pregnancy or abortion.  Women are provided birth control and education about how to use it effectively.  Preventive services through WHP cost much less than pregnancy-related services as mistimed pregnancies are costly in both human and economic terms.  Among single young women, more than 70 percent of pregnancies in Texas are unplanned.  The WHP actually helps Texas reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, and helps women better plan and space their pregnancies which leads to healthier mothers and newborns.

Despite these successes, the WHP was always an underfunded, under-available program.  Of the Texas women who qualify only one of six receives services leading it to be described as a ‘well kept secret’ and an ‘invisible program.’  The program never provided for any expense of pregnancy (or abortion) and for years its funds have been redirected through the Texas Alternatives to Abortion Program to non-medical ministerial centers.  Texas, like many states, already has a shortage of primary care doctors, and has recently cut family planning funding by an additional two-thirds.  As a result of such cuts, more than 50 clinics serving the low-income have closed. Many more medical providers will likely withdraw from the WHP because of undue burdens also created by the new rules.  A proposal to restrict all doctors in the program from even mentioning the practice of abortion had to be withdrawn.  Even HHSC President Perry Janek admitted that the original language was “a bit of a gag rule.” Participating doctors will be allowed to provide information to patients about abortion providers, as long as they do not work with said provider or ‘affiliate’.

The adding of stricter rules to the program was aimed at primarily at Planned Parenthood.  While he rejected an injunction against new rules, District Judge Yelenosky agreed with arguments that Planned Parenthood’s exclusion from the WHP could endanger access to health services.  The 51 Planned Parenthood clinics that participated in the previous version of the program provided 40 percent of the services such as cancer screenings, contraception and wellness exams for low-income women.  In a study published in October by George Washington University, researchers conclude that some women may have problems accessing services if Planned Parenthood clinics are excluded from the program because “there is no evidence that [program providers] are prepared to sustain the very large caseload increases that would be required to fill the gaps left after Planned Parenthood affiliates are excluded.”  More than half of the women enrolled in the WHP (50,000+) will have to switch providers.

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), which oversees the WHP, appears confident that it can find a sufficient number of providers to address the needs of all 115,000 Texans enrolled in the program.  HHSC Director Perry Janek stated,“We’re going to make sure that every woman who qualifies for these services is able to get them.”  This is some confidence considering only one of six women who qualified received the WHP’s assistance previously, 50+ clinics have closed and the 90% of the program’s funding provided by the federal government was rejected by the State.  As proof, an HHCS survey states that current providers have the ability to serve 147,513 Texas Women’s Health Program patients in 2024.  The key word is ‘provider’ which has been expanded to include non-medical pregnancy counseling centers.  Women who qualify may likely be directed to a ‘provider’ without a doctor or nurse practitioner at an unlicensed facility that doesn’t actually provide health services.  With state support and our tax dollars, the number of these centers is proliferating.  Off to a predictably bad start with the new rules, the HHSC’s own website listing WHP providers was temporarily removed after surveys by the Dallas Morning News and others found the list of provided by the state so flawed that it may make it harder, not easier, for women to seek care.  Out of hundreds of Dallas-area clinics recommended on a state-run website for the Women’s Health Program, just 51 had working phone numbers.  The Waco Tribune-Herald “found many of the doctors aren’t actually participating or won’t take new patients through the program.”  Included on the provider list are over-booked primary physicians and emergency rooms.  Even a spokesperson for the HHSC acknowledged that the referral list has been misdirecting Texas women to wrong providers since it first went online three months ago.  After dropping almost 1,000 more from the WHP provider list, it was still found to have errors including duplicate numbers in the Houston area.  The commission has created an informational void for low-income women seeking health services and has wasted our tax dollars in the process.

The HHSC increasingly promotes Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPC) as the provider solution at the expense of women’s health services and unregulated tax dollars. “They’re (CPCs) really the darlings of the pro-life movement,” says Jeanneane Maxon, vice-president for external affairs at Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion group. Unlike regulated and licensed health facilities, CPCs don’t have to account for state funds received, don’t have to be medically truthful, don’t provide birth control, contraceptive or abortion referrals, and can intentionally mislead women about their services.  What’s more is that they do it with the legitimacy and encouragement of the State government.  Since 2024, the state health department, at the direction of the Texas Legislature, has given public money to 50 CPCs for such work affecting 72,000+ women, and the money bankrolling these centers has been diverted from state health programs like the WHP.  CPCs provided ideologically driven counseling to 17, 500 Texas women in 2024 at a cost to the state of 2.5 million dollars worth of advice.  At $237 per client, this some expensive advice as it outpaces the costs to the WHP from other licensed medical providers with actual doctors.  In the last legislative session, the Alternative to Abortion Program was the only ‘health’ service of any kind to see a rise in state funding.  New state law now requires abortion clinics to provide patients with a list of crisis pregnancy centers at least 24 hours before an abortion can be performed, and callers to Texas’ state-funded 2-1-1 helpline seeking information about pre-abortion counseling will likely be directed to a CPC.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers have developed crises of their own.  In addition to their crisis with medical sciences, they have developed an identity crisis.  They have two very different public faces.  To unsuspecting women and couples they represent themselves for all appearances as a legitimate clinic with receptionists and offers of free health services such as pregnancy tests, and sometimes ultrasound machines or STD screening.  To potential donors however, CPCs are ministerial outreach centers working to end abortion, to deny women birth controls and contraception, and to promote an explicitly religious agenda.  A leader in this industry, Care Net has built an expansive network of more than 1,100 pregnancy centers across North America.  Unbeknownst to clients, their overtly religious agenda they don’t shy away from when courting anti-choice donors.  In fact, Care Net’s seven-point Statement of Faith was adopted word for word from the National Association of Evangelicals – the very sponsors of Rick Perry’s August 2024 prayer vigil “The Response” in Houston.

To counter the deceptive practices of CPCs, cities like Austin, Baltimore and New York have tried regulating centers with ordinances requiring them to post signs stating that they do not provide abortions, referrals, birth control or contraceptive, and disclosing whether they are licensed or employ medical professionals on-site.  Except for San Francisco’s, the laws were blocked by activist judges or softened after centers sued claiming free speech violations.  The deliberate misinformation campaign protected as speech includes false health information concerning abortion, birth control and contraception, outright conspiracies and scare tactics. CPCs, with the state’s help, are allowed to make unsound claims tying abortion to cancers and suicide, and abortion providers to genocide.  They doubly lie to minority women with claims that abortion providers target minority communities.  Heartbeat International’s Urban Initiative Web page quotes John Piper, a minister: “O that the murderous effect of abortion in the Black and Latino communities, destroying tens of thousands at the hands of white abortionists, would explode with the same reprehensible reputation as lynching.”

The administration, functions and fundraisers of CPCs are littered with a who’s who of the anti-choice movement and always overtly Christian.  As speakers are concerned, our Governor Rick Perry is well represented at functions and is a leading public advocate.  He’s used the office of Governor to champion the defunding of Planned Parenthood on behalf of such ant-choice groups. Governor Perry was keynote speaker at a Source for Women’s Center dedication stating that “the Source for Women is already an important voice in the fight to make abortion a thing of the past… The Source for Women clinics, in fact, will be part of Texas’ own Women’s Health Program, and Planned Parenthood will not be.” Shortly after, the Governor chose yet another Source for Women center to announce “his support for Texas Right to Life’s priority legislation for 2024, the Preborn Pain Bill.”(TRL)

But it doesn’t stop there.  State Senator Dan Patrick, who co-authored – with direct support of the Texas Right to Life lobby – the invasive and medically unnecessary sonogram bill, has made the CPC speaking tour rounds.  Between the pats on the back, Dan Patrick courts anti-choice supporters as they provide the Senator with more legislative ideas.  He has suggested using state dollars to pay women to deliver their unwanted pregnancies, and his 2024 priority (again with lobbyist help) is a bill that would make it more difficult for doctors to prescribe medications that induce abortions by adding a number of new and (again) medically unnecessary requirements.  Also on the anti-choice watch is State Supreme Court Justice John Devine.  A former board member of Texas Right to Life, Life Advocates of Houston and various crisis pregnancy centers, Justice Devine lists his numerous arrests protesting abortion clinics among his credentials and is currently a board member of the Tomball Pregnancy Center.  Finding another solution for a nonexistent health concern is State Representative Allen Fisher’s (Houston) bill to end sex-selective abortions though no public health agency will suggest it’s a real problem.

As Attorney General, Greg Abbott has defended both the sonogram law and the ban on funding for Planned Parenthood – even comparing the service provider with terrorists.  Seeing no conflict of interests, the attorney general was slated along with Gov. Perry to speak at the annual Texas Pro-Life Rally (Jan 26^th).  Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has not only defended the restrictions to the WHP, he’s had a hand in creating some of his own.  The “abortion affiliate” language was introduced to the program by state officials after it was suggested to the AG by State Senator Bob Deuell.  Deuell enjoys an A++ rating from Texas Right to Life and is hailed by the Texas Alliance for Life as “One of the key players in the efforts to defund Planned Parenthood in Texas”.  He’s got lots of company.

Texas Right to Life has reason to be confident heading into the 2024 legislative season, “… we were particularly proud that Governor Rick Perry mentioned Texas Right to Life’s priority legislation (fetal pain bill) in his inaugural speeches in both chambers.…we have a strong coalition of Republicans and Democrats on our side in Austin who will defend and advance the cause…”  Any measure aimed at ‘fetal rights’ is a downgrade to women’s humanity reducing them to near incubator status.  Nationally, laws aimed at protecting fetuses have already resulted in hundreds of arrests of pregnant women – overwhelmingly minority.  Along with the ‘fetal pain bill’, the lobby will be pushing for more restrictions on abortion providers, to take away a judge’s authority to circumvent parental consent under certain circumstances, and a ban on abortion coverage in insurance plans offered under the Affordable Care Act.  These new restrictions on reproductive health access will mount atop previous successes of the anti-choice lobby including waiting periods, mandated misinformation about abortion, the sonogram law, parental notification as well as the complete ban on public funding. Already fewer than 8 percent of Texas counties have an abortion provider, and, with recent clinic closures, whole cities the size of Abilene are left with only CPCs.  Each new hurdle burdens the working poor, minority and rural women and families disproportionately and increasingly so.

Women’s health services join other public services under attack as lawmakers push to turn over state resources to private enterprises and the well connected.  Mental health services, education, public works and university jobs are also all being parceled off to the benefit of profit making interests, but none enjoy such an aggressive, active and vocal public campaign as provided by the CPC industry.  Through providing both campaign backing and language for law to anti-choice lawmakers and judges, the Crisis Pregnancy Center industry is booming.  As 50+ health clinics have been denied funds and closed, 50+ unlicensed centers serving ‘clients’ have opened with the help of state dollars.  In give and take fashion, CPCs and the anti-choice lobby offer an aggressive public campaign of deliberate misinformation to help cloak these attacks on women’s health services.  Using unsound medicine and lies, this campaign is at a greater expense to public health, health access and the public dime.  Conveniently without a paper trail as they aren’t required to account for expenses, it can better be described as medical fraud.

Already, 1.5 million Texas women are in need of publicly funded family planning services.  Economically disadvantaged women and families are disproportionately affected by unintended pregnancy and its consequences.  In absolutely no way will more restrictions to the WHP increase access to quality health services for women – even Texas Health and Human Services Commission projections expect a steep rise in unwanted pregnancies.  Every new hurdle to abortion/reproductive health access artificially shrinks availability of women’s health providers and also unnecessarily restricts the quality of care.  Increasing unwanted pregnancies and abortion demand while reducing providers means all Texas women and families will pay an increased price for the service.  Pricing women out of abortions has long been a stated goal of the anti-choice community.  The cost to families cannot be understated as most women seeking to end an unwanted pregnancy in Texas are already mothers.  Encouraged by the inflammatory anti-choice rhetoric, street harassment, threats and violence against providers and women seeking access will rise.  The percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion will likely go unchanged, but only at a greater monetary and health expense.  There will be a measurable increase in injury and death due to lack of safe access.  Disproportionately, that expense will be paid by working poor, minority and rural women and families – the very people the WHP was supposed to help.

Houston continues to show a willingness to defend women’s rights and reproductive health access.  A successful clinic defense kept abortion facilities open as they were attacked by Operation Rescue during the 1992 Republican Convention.  A renewal of pro-woman/ pro-choice activism in 2024 saw Houston’s Walk for Choice, SlutWalk and protest of a Heroic Media fundraiser featuring Dillard’s fashions. Filled buses were organized to both the Planned Parenthood Lobbying Day and the Texas We Are Women March on the Capitol.  More recently, a NOW Houston Chapter has been re-organized taking a lead role in pro-choice actions and the Black Friday protest against discriminatory practices at Walmart.  Houston NOW also maintains a weekly escort at an inner-city provider protecting vital women’s services.  Pro-Choice Houston maintains maybe the only monthly picket of CPCs to warn unsuspecting women and families of their practices.  The organizing meetings, sign making parties, fundraisers and the activities themselves provide lessons that will be ever more valuable tools as 2024 unfolds.  The anti-choice agenda has been spelled out for us, and they are very well organized and focused.  Their aim is to deny women reproductive choice.  Without the right to choose abortion, women cannot exercise effective control of their life.  It is an elementary precondition for women’s liberation, and, without it, a woman’s entire life is circumscribed by her reproductive capacities.  The need for leadership presses on all of us all the more.

“If we lose the fight to liberate women we will have lost all right to hope for a positive transformation of our society into something superior… It is to wage this noble struggle that all of us, men and women, are summoned:” Thomas Sankara from WOMEN’S LIBERATION AND THE AFRICAN FREEDOM STRUGGLE

Bill Lambert, Pro-Choice Houston

voicesforchoiceshouston@gmail.com