Her-story in the Making
As Women’s History Month draws to a close, we want to reflect on three historical moments that took place this month.
On Friday, March 22, the Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Review Committee (MMMRC) held its quarterly meeting to discuss their progress over the past two years. During this meeting, it was announced that, since its inception, the MMMRC has not had the opportunity to review cases involving abortion because of a limitation within the law. It’s unclear how many abortion-related cases the Committee has unwittingly omitted and if the Committee will be allowed to review these cases in the future. In addition to this bombshell, the MMMRC announced that Texas will no longer participate in the CDC’s national database that collects, reviews, and analyzes maternal mortality and morbidity data. This year’s report will be its first since the Dobbs decision and is expected to cover 2020 pregnancy deaths and, later, those from 2021. Though we still won’t see the impact the state’s abortion ban has had on maternal deaths, we could begin to see trends from the implementation of Senate Bill 8 which, due to the chilling effect of the vigilante clause, was a defacto ban on abortion. You can use this link to learn more about the Committee’s work, read their 2022 report, and watch a recording of their March meeting.
Last Friday, the Texas Medical Board (TMB) also held an important women’s health-related public meeting. In January, Amy and Steve Bresnen filed a petition asking the TMB to issue clear guidance regarding the instances in which an abortion is allowed under the law. The hope was that the TMB would use this opportunity to clarify at what point in a medical emergency can a doctor perform an abortion; how can doctors ensure their medical judgments meet the standard of “reasonable medical judgment;” and what legally sufficient evidence must be present to show that an abortion was or wasn’t necessary. However, the TMB instead proposed a broad definition that simply mirrors current law rather than clarifying it. Furthermore, the draft rules would create an onerous documentation and reporting process that could significantly delay a physician's ability to administer lifesaving treatment. To make matters worse, the draft rules also state that any process established at the TMB would be “separate and independent” from those in a criminal trial which means physicians cannot rely on the final rules to be of any use should they be challenged in court by an anti-abortion activist for delivering said treatment. The Board indicated that they may consider the rules again at their next meeting in June. In the meantime, you may read and submit public comments on the proposed rules here.
Finally, on March 26, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine - the court case challenging the FDA’s decades-long approval of mifepristone, a medication commonly used for abortion. The purpose of this case is to further restrict reproductive rights by tightening access to the most common, effective, and safe method used in nearly 60% of all abortions nationwide. Based on their lines of questioning, it seems likely that the justices agree with the FDA in that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine lacks the proper standing to bring a suit forward. However, if the justices choose to rule solely on the issue of standing, then it’s possible the lawsuit could be revived in the future. For now, medication abortion is still available according to state law. The Supreme Court’s final opinion will be released this summer.
In the coming months, the Texas Women’s Health Caucus will remain vigilant and continue to monitor developments in these issues. We are also watching for new developments and will keep our members and subscribers informed.