Texas Bill Targets Teenagers

4.2.25

Click to skip ahead: Attacks on Teens has news on a new bill in Texas. In the States, news from Nevada, West Virginia, California, Idaho, and more. In the Courts, what you need to know about the oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court today. You Love to See It has great news about the Wisconsin Supreme Court election. In the Nation, some quick hits. Finally, in Talking Points Alert, a warning about a new anti-abortion strategy.

---

Attacks on Teens

Texas Republicans have introduced a last-minute bill targeting anyone who helps a teenager get an out-of-state abortion. While they’re framing the legislation as an effort to ‘protect’ minors, it’s really all about punishment and isolation.

SB 2352 wouldn’t just criminalize “transporting” a teenager out of Texas for abortion care—it would also be a felony to fund the transportation of a teen. In other words, giving your 17 year-old niece a few dollars for gas could land you in prison.

A few important things to know:

This bill robs teenagers of community support. Republicans want to isolate young people, stripping them of any support from friends, family, trusted adults, and local organizations. The idea is to create a chilling effect that makes people too afraid to help each other.

The bill is an attack on abortion funds. While SB 2352 would allow for the prosecution of any kind of ‘helper,’ the ultimate goal is targeting Texas funds helping people get abortion medication or out-of-state care. Republicans in the state have introduced multiple bills that would criminalize the work of abortion funds, and they’re really hoping at least one will stick. As is the case with SB 31—the Trojan Horse bill that Republicans claim will save women’s lives—this bill uses the protection of teenagers to shroud lawmakers’ real intent.

This will never stop at teenagers. I have a whole chapter in my book about this: Teenagers are the canaries in the coal mines. Republicans are using their rights as a testing ground for their most extreme legislation. Remember, after two years of introducing and passing ‘trafficking’ laws that sought to restrict teens’ ability to leave their states, Montana Republicans introduced legislation that would prosecute women of all ages for ‘trafficking’ their own fetuses across state lines. What happens to teens today comes for the rest of us tomorrow. Always.

I’ll have more on this bill as it advances, but one more fun fact in the meantime (okay, not so ‘fun’): Under SB 2352, you wouldn’t be criminalized for helping a teen get an out-of-state abortion if that teen were married. I said this in a TikTok I made earlier today, but it’s just such a gross reminder that Republicans don’t care whether girls get abused—so long as they get married.

In the States

While we’re talking about attacks on teenagers, a related story out of Nevada: A judge has lifted a 40-year pause on the state’s parental notification law. So we’re going back literal decades. Again.

This court ruling means starting at the end of the month, minors seeking abortions will need to tell their parents or get a judicial bypass to forgo the requirement. (Unless—here we go again—they’re married.)

Parental notification or consent laws always make my head spin because they just make zero sense. Take this quote from anti-abortion attorney James Bopp over at KUNR, which gave me an immediate migraine:

“We thought it was really important that this law protecting minors, who are too immature to make their own decision regarding abortion, would obtain parental involvement in that decision.”

How the fuck can someone be too immature to have an abortion, but mature enough to parent? Here’s another unhinged quote—this time from the executive director of Nevada Right to Life, who claimed that “girls as young as 10 years old can get an abortion without a parent knowing, making a life-changing medical decision.”

First of all, the idea that 10-year-olds are secretly getting abortions without their parents knowing is absurd fearmongering. Secondly, what’s more “life-changing”—a safe, 10-minute medical procedure, or nine months of pregnancy and potentially a lifetime of parenting? And finally: Are they seriously admitting they think 10-year-olds should be forced to give birth?

Meanwhile, the West Virginia Senate has passed a bill targeting out-of-state abortion providers. SB 85 would make shipping abortion medication into the state a felony, and allow pregnant people who end their pregnancies to sue the person who shipped them the medication. Telehealth abortion is already illegal in the state.

Sponsor Sen. Patricia Rucker has tried to play down the bill’s extremism, saying that it doesn’t create any new restrictions, but simply enforces existing law. But make no mistake—this is another shot fired in a rapidly growing interstate battle over abortion rights and criminalization.

The legislation comes at the same time that New York abortion provider Dr. Maggie Carpenter has been indicted in Louisiana, and just a few days after a New York county clerk refused to process a summons from Texas or enforce a court order against Dr. Carpenter.

---

Read Abortion, Every Day’s breaking story out of South Carolina:

Her Fetus Has No Heartbeat—They Still Won't Give Her An Abortion

---

Remember the California woman who was denied miscarriage treatment by a Catholic hospital? I sure do: Anna Nusslock was only 15 weeks pregnant when her water broke. There was no chance her twin fetuses would survive, but Providence St. Joseph Hospital refused to give her care because there were still audible fetal heart tones.

The detail I remember most? As she was leaving—about to drive to a hospital that might help—staff gave her a bucket and towels "in case something happens in the car.”

I’m glad to report that Nusslock is now suing the hospital for denying her life-saving treatment, saying she hopes the move will force hospitals to do the right thing in the future. "We need to be putting pressure on these hospitals,” she says.

Her suit comes a few months after California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Providence St. Joseph himself over Nusslock’s treatment (or lack thereof). He pointed out at the time that they violated state law requiring hospitals to not only provide life-saving care, but also prevent serious injury or illness.

“We need hospitals to follow the law, at the bare minimum,” Bonta said at the time. “That is not too much to ask…If you are a human being, you can see how cruel this was."

After Nusslock came forward, another patient revealed that she was also denied miscarriage care when she was 17 weeks pregnant. For more on how Catholic hospitals endanger women’s lives, read Abortion, Every Day’s investigation below:

The Catholic Hospital System Killing Women

Idaho has been steadily losing doctors since Roe was overturned—OBGYNs and maternal fetal medicine specialists, especially. Now, the Idaho Statesman reports, lawmakers are trying to figure out how to bring them back. And while Republicans have proposed all sorts of different bills they thought might help, they haven’t tried the one they really need. From Rep. Ilana Rubel:

“The elephant in the room—the thing that absolutely has to be solved if we are ever going to put any kind of a dent in this deficit—is that we have got to pull back on Idaho’s frankly insane total abortion ban that has no health exception.”

When Rubel proposed legislation to repeal the state’s ban, it didn’t receive a hearing; nor did a bill proposed by a Republican senator that would have allowed for an exception to protect a patient’s health.

Something tells me doctors won’t be coming back any time soon.

Quick hits:

• Montana Republicans are trying to get fetal personhood on the ballot;

• Providers in Maine say the Title X funding freeze will be devastating in the state;

• Texas has suspended the license of the midwife arrested for providing abortions;

• There’s an abortion funding fight in DC;

• Finally, two new bills in North Carolina seek to curb some of the damage done by anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.

In the Courts

There was a major abortion case in front of the Supreme Court today: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic—a case that could impact low-income patients across the country.

Here’s the short version: Medicaid patients have the right to choose their own healthcare provider, so long as that provider is qualified and participates in the program. Planned Parenthood checks both boxes. But in 2018, Republican leaders in South Carolina blocked Planned Parenthood from the state’s Medicaid program—effectively stopping low-income patients from being able to pick their own provider.

In response, Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a Medicaid-eligible patient sued—which kicked off the legal fight that brought us to today’s oral arguments. During those arguments, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)—the far-right legal group that helped overturn Roe—claimed that neither patients nor providers have the right to enforce that Medicaid guarantee. Let that sink in: South Carolina is arguing that low-income patients shouldn’t be allowed to hold them accountable in court.

And while ADF tried to frame the case around technicalities and legal jargon, Planned Parenthood’s attorney got to the heart of the matter: “They just don’t like Planned Parenthood.”

I’ll have more on Medina in the coming days, but what’s most important to know is that this case goes way beyond one state. If SCOTUS sides with South Carolina, states could discriminate against providers for political reasons, leaving almost no recourse for patients.

As Justice Kagan put it during oral arguments: “There’s an obligation, there’s a right. And the right is the right to choose their doctor.”

You Love to See It

We had some terrific news in Wisconsin last night, where pro-choice judge Susan Crawford won a seat on the state Supreme Court! What makes this win all the sweeter is that Elon Musk spent $25 million trying to get loser Brad Schimel on the bench. From The New York Times:

”Mr. Musk not only poured money into the race but also campaigned personally in the state, even donning a cheesehead. But his starring role seemed to inflame Democratic anger against him even more than it helped Judge Schimel.”

That’s just delightful!

I’m sure you all know by now why this particular election—which ended up being the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history—is so important. But if you need a refresher, just check out yesterday’s newsletter. The short version is that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will decide abortion rights in the state, along with influencing national elections.

Given what a misogynist dirtbag Schimel is, this also feels like a feminist win. (Remember, he said women were too ‘emotional’ to rule.) Not to mention what the election results mean for democracy more broadly—especially given Musk’s involvement.

On Monday, Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, called the election a “test” that the whole world was watching: “This is a chance for us to show that in a moment that is so terrifying nationally that we still believe in democracy.”

In the Nation

• The Washington Post says SCOTUS seemed to be backing Planned Parenthood in court today;

• States Newsroom on the conservative attacks against HIPAA and what it means for abortion privacy;

• The New York Times reports that the Trump administration cuts for international family programs will strip 50 million women of contraception access;

• And HuffPost delves into Donald Trump’s claims that he’s making IVF free.

Talking Point Alert

We all know conservatives are desperate to kill off access to abortion pills. Medication abortion accounts for more than half of all abortions in the U.S., and 20% are done via telehealth. The pills have also become a lifeline for people in states with bans—patients can now get medication shipped from pro-choice states. Republicans hate this.

That’s why we’re seeing so many different kinds of attacks: lawsuits claiming the medication is dangerous, bills trying to reclassify it as a controlled substance, and—my personal favorite—campaigns warning that abortion pills poison the groundwater when patients flush the toilet. (Yes, really.)

But these attacks aren’t just about control—they’re also about optics. Republicans are trying to restrict abortion under the guise of ‘protecting’ women—a desperate attempt to deflect accusations of misogyny. That’s why their messaging leans so heavily on words like “coercion” and “trafficking,” or fake stats about mental health risks and physical danger.

Which brings me to this press release from Oklahoma Rep. Denise Crosswhite Hader, who just introduced a bill to ban the so-called ‘trafficking’ of abortion medication. (Translation: she wants to criminalize anyone who gives abortion pills to someone else.)

Check out this language:

“The drugs are often taken in isolation. This leaves the woman to go through cramping and bleeding and the shedding of her pregnancy with no medical expert on hand to help her through not only the physical pain and after-effects of the drugs, but also the mental anguish that can result from seeing her pre-term pregnancy in a non-viable state.”"

She goes on to say:

"I'm concerned that a woman given these drugs to take in isolation could die by herself, and they could keep her from being able to carry to term a pregnancy at a later date should that be desired.”

There’s a lot to unpack there. I’m going to ignore Hader’s claim that women will suddenly change their mind about wanting a pregnancy if they’re forced into it—because ew. What really stands out is her fixation on the idea of “isolation.” She mentions it twice.

Chances are she didn’t come up with that framing on her own—it almost certainly came from anti-abortion groups testing out new language. Which means we’ll probably start seeing a lot more of it.

What’s wild is that the reason some women take abortion pills alone—without telling anyone—is because of abortion bans. Look at Texas: laws there encourage people to turn in their friends and family for helping with abortions. Or consider the multiple bills and laws aimed at criminalizing helping teens to get out-of-state abortions. The whole fucking point is to isolate women and girls!

Why is it always projection with these people?

That’s what makes this talking point especially easy to debunk: If women are ‘isolated’ while self-managing an abortion, it’s because Republican laws have terrified them out of seeking support.

Unfortunately, conservatives don’t care about reality—so we’re likely to see this message take off anyway, no matter how flimsy or false it is.