Home > Trail Blazers Blog

Tag Archives: abortion

Carona makes peace with Patrick, Van de Putte pulls more Planned Parenthood help

Sen. John Carona talks with a supporter in Dallas on primary night in March. (Kye R. Lee/Staff photographer)

Update at 3:25 p.m.: Have corrected date of Paul Reyes’ and Helen Carona’s contributions to Patrick: They gave on the same day in 2013, not this year.

Original item at 12:43 p.m.: Dallas state Sen. John Carona has continued to make peace with fellow Republican and lieutenant governor candidate Dan Patrick.

The political action committee at Carona’s business Associa Inc., which manages homeowners’ assocations across the country, gave Patrick $5,000 earlier this week, according to telegram reports to the Texas Ethics Commission.

As my colleague Terrence Stutz reported here nearly 2 1/2 years ago, Carona called Patrick a “snake oil salesman” and a “narcissist that would say anything to draw attention to himself.”

Patrick, R-Houston, said in an email to all senators that Carona had spread a false rumor that Patrick and his wife, Jan, were divorcing. Carona, R-Dallas, replied that Patrick should have first checked with him regarding the allegations before contacting their colleagues. Carona also raised the ante, mentioning rumors about Patrick’s sexual orientation as well. Patrick dismissed as “a lie” suggestions he is gay and demanded Carona apologize.

At the time, Carona didn’t. Late last year, though, the Associa PAC gave $30,000 to Patrick, even as Carona didn’t personally endorse him in the GOP lieutenant governor primary.

In March, Carona lost his Senate seat to tea party-backed Republican Don Huffines in a GOP primary. Since then, he has endorsed Patrick.

Dan Patrick and Leticia Van de Putte shake hands at their televised debate last month. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

As I reported in a story in Wednesday’s newspaper, Associa executive Paul Reyes, a former Carona Senate staff aide, contributed $20,000 to Patrick. That was on top of $5,000 Reyes gave to Patrick in August 2013 — the same day Carona’s wife, Helen, chipped in $2,500 to the Patrick cause.

It appears that Associa may have some legislative irons in the fire.

Meanwhile, Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, Patrick’s Democratic colleague and opponent for lieutenant governor, reported more than three times as many late contributions as did Patrick.

This week, she took in more than $82,000, to about $23,500 for Patrick.

Just more than half of the contributions on Van de Putte’s telegram reports came from groups supporting abortion rights. Planned Parenthood’s PACs in New York City and Austin donated nearly $30,000 of staff time, phone calls and postage. Annie’s List gave the San Antonio lawmaker a $13,000 check.

As I noted in Wednesday’s story, Patrick strategist Allen Blakemore belittled Van de Putte’s matching Patrick’s fundraising haul of $2 million between Sept. 26 and Saturday. Blakemore noted that one-third of her money was in-kind donations from Planned Parenthood, the liberal group Texas Organizing Project and voter-organizing Battleground Texas.

On Thursday morning, Logan Spence, a long-time Patrick aide, seized on the late assists from Planned Parenthood PACs as a sign Van de Putte would try to lead the Senate in a very different direction on abortion than Patrick would. But then we knew that, didn’t we?

Here’s Spence’s tweet on the subject:

Cornyn and Alameel spar over immigration, marriage, abortion in Senate debate

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, left, and Democratic challenger David Alameel greet each other at the start of their debate at Mountain View College campus in Dallas tonight. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Cornyn portrayed himself Friday night as an agent of change in Washington, as rival David Alameel blasted him for blocking immigration reforms while kowtowing to Wall Street.

This was the first and only debate of the contest, as Cornyn seeks a third term and Alameel claws for traction.

With Univision as the debate host, a hefty chunk of the questioning was aimed at immigration policy – an area of especially clear disagreement.

Cornyn, who has long resisted legalization for the 11 million people in the country illegally, called himself a “strong supporter of immigration reform.”  He agreed that young people brought to the country illegally by their parents – the so-called “Dreamers” – should be eligible for college aid.

But he called it politically impossible to pass a so-called “comprehensive” overhaul, and argued for taking smaller steps with broader support.

“I wouldn’t hold my breath for Republicans to offer you any immigration reform,” Alameel said.

The vast majority of immigrants have been in this country for years, breaking no laws and working hard. They “deserve a path to citizenship,” he said.

Cornyn proposed a flexible cap on immigrant visas, fluctuating with the U.S. economy and needs of employers.

“Of course we need to increase quotas” Alameel shot back, adding that this sidestepped the core issue, citizenship. Without that, he said, “It will take us a hundred years to give the relief that our Latino community deserves.”

The debate, at Mountain View College in Dallas, offered Alameel a rare shot at making headway against an incumbent with a huge edge in name identification and fund-raising. He labeled Cornyn a “do nothing senator. Our country burns while Cornyn fiddles.”

These and other barbs may not be seen widely enough to make much difference. The Dallas Univision station and Texas Tribune streamed the debate live online. Univision viewers can watch the debate in Spanish on Saturday night. C-Span will broadcast it Wednesday night in English.

Cornyn, the No. 2 GOP leader in the Senate, portrayed Alameel as a potential reinforcement for Democrats in the final two years of the Obama administration.

“What we need is new leadership and a new direction. We don’t need people who will go to Washington and support the status quo—the obstruction of the majority leader and the policies of the president,” Cornyn said.

Alameel asserted that Wall Street interests control the Republican Party and “John Cornyn is one of the leaders of that establishment, who only care about themselves….He’s turning our country into a minimum wage nation and we say enough is enough.”

They disagreed on a host of issues.

Cornyn called it “dangerous” to make marijuana legal, even for medical purposes. Alameel argued for full decriminalization. “Having prohibition didn’t work,” he said.

Cornyn reiterated his dim view of the Affordable Care Act. Alameel called Obamacare “a good step in the right direction” and argued that “Republicans have to stop saying no” and should work to improve it.

Both rivals called it a bad idea to make English the nation’s official language, though unlike Cornyn, Alameel said government documents should be offered in a variety of languages to ensure that people who haven’t learned English aren’t “abandoned.”

On the Ebola crisis, Alameel agreed with calls coming mostly from Republicans in Congress – and a few Democrats – for a travel ban on West Africa. “Yes,” he said, “we need to restrict flying. In any epidemic you have to restrict the flow in and out of that affected area.”

Both noted the lack of preparedness by Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.

“There was no leadership from the White House and from the federal government,” Cornyn said.

Alameel also worries about lack of preparations.  ”If we have an epidemic, the first nine patients will be taken care of, and the other 100,000 will die,” he said.

Alameel was asked about the $15,000 or so he donated to Cornyn a decade ago.

“This is one terrible mistake I have to live with,” he said.

Cornyn wasn’t about to let his rival off the hook so easily. “He was an enthusiastic supporter of mine and Gov. Perry… and Republicans up and down the ticket.” he said.

On the president’s handling of the Islamic State terror group, Cornyn blasted the refusal to put American “boots on the ground.” Alameel lauded the president for bombing ISIS but warned that “we don’t need to create another big war.”

Social issues offered more bright lines.

Cornyn defended Texas’ tough law imposing requirements that forced most of the state’s abortion clinics to close. Alameel said that as a Catholic he doesn’t believe in abortion but wants them to be legal and available.

On same-sex marriage, Cornyn said that “I am pro-traditional marriage” and wants the federal government to respect Texas’ views that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

Said Alameel, “We should move on from these divisive issues.”

Staff writer Michael Marks contribute to this report.

Nonpartisan poll: Immigration, border security top state worry

Detainees wait in Brownsville, Texas, in a holding cell at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection processing facility. (June 18 photo by Eric Gay-Pool/Getty Images)

Immigration and border security have displaced education as the top issue facing the state, according to the eighth annual Texas Lyceum Poll.

In the nonpartisan poll, released Tuesday, 31 percent of adults said immigration or border security is the most important issue, compared with 11 percent who said education. Eight percent cited either jobs and unemployment or the economy.

The results ran opposite to voters’ ranking of national concerns, said the group’s pollster, University of Texas political scientist Daron Shaw. At the national level, 20 percent of adult Texans cite the economy and jobs as the top issue, compared with just 11 percent calling it immigration or border security.

“This is probably the most dramatic instance in which border security and immigration issues are dominating economic mentions — at least with respect to the state, not the nation,” Shaw told reporters.

The poll consisted of telephone interviews with 1,000 Texas adults that were conducted between Sept. 9 and Sept. 25. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.1 percent.

The survey tested attitudes on the recent influx of tens of thousands of unaccompanied children from Central America into Texas, after they made often-harrowing journeys across Mexico.

Texans clashed on whether the children should be returned to their home country as soon as possible, with 48 percent of respondents agreeing while 42 percent said they should be permitted to stay in the U.S. while awaiting an immigration hearing, even if it takes a long time.

Among the 666 likely voters who were interviewed, support for immediate return of the children jumped to 58 percent, with 37 percent saying the youngsters should be allowed to stay for a time.

Immigrants who have been caught crossing the border illegally are housed inside the McAllen Border Patrol Station in McAllen. Detainees are mostly separated by gender and age, except for infants. (July 15 pool photo by Rick Loomis/Getty Images)

Along lines of party affiliation and racial or ethnic identity, the differences were even more stark. Among Democrats, 64 percent want the children to be allowed to stay, while 73 percent of Republicans favored returning them to their country as soon as possible. Among independents, who accounted for 22 percent of adults interviewed, sentiment was roughly equal: Forty-five percent want the children to stay; 44 percent, to leave immediately.

While blacks were fairly evenly divided among the two camps, whites and Hispanics were not. Among whites, 62 percent said the children should be returned to their home country, compared with only 28 percent who would allow them to stay. Among Hispanics, though, 58 percent supported letting them stay in the U.S. awaiting a hearing while 33 percent would send them home as soon as possible.

“Although the majority response sides with law and order, we do see that the attitudes of Texans depend on context,” Shaw said. “If immigration is framed in terms of caring for children, our willingness to compromise increases.”

The poll, a summary of which can be viewed here, also examined attitudes on abortion. Earlier this month, state Sen. Wendy Davis, the Democratic nominee for governor, revealed she had two abortions. One was after an ectopic pregnancy, which is commonly viewed as life threatening; and the other, after the fetus was found to have a severe abnormality known as Dandy-Walker syndrome.

By better than 3-to-1 margins, Texas adults said abortion should be legal if the woman’s health is seriously endangered or she became pregnant because of rape. For pregnancies resulting from incest, 68 percent supported allowing abortion as an option, while 24 percent opposed doing so. When there is “a strong chance of a serious defect in the baby,” 54 percent said a woman should be able to obtain an abortion and 31 percent said she should not.

“Most people, Republicans included, say women ought to have an abortion option under those circumstances,” Shaw said. “When you start talking about more choice-oriented, situational circumstances, support drops and you begin to see some of the partisan differences really show.”

For instance, when asked if it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion if she is unmarried and doesn’t want to marry the man, just 24 percent of Republicans agreed. Among both Democrats and independents, support was considerably higher — 44 percent — though still below a majority. Only about a third of all adults favored legal abortion if married women want no more children or the family is poor and says it can’t afford more children.

On the federal health care overhaul, the poll found 48 percent of Texas adults have an unfavorable opinion, versus 33 percent with a favorable attitude.

“Opinion is pretty static here,” Shaw said, noting the state results are comparable to national polls. “There is not a lot going on.”

On Wednesday, the Lyceum, a group of 96 people touted as “the next generation of Texas leaders,” will release horse race numbers in the statewide contests on the Nov. 4 ballot. Also divulged will be results of questions about Gov. Rick Perry and President Barack Obama, as well as about Perry’s recent indictment for coercion and misuse of his post in connection with a budget line-item veto threat last year.

Republicans dismiss equal pay and abortions for rape as minor issues; Dems pounce

Democrats and support groups are slamming comments made independently by Republicans this weekend that they believe show the GOP has turned a deaf ear towards serious women’s issues.

Republicans have no female candidates for statewide office on the ballot, and Democrats have been waiting for any potential gaffes from the nearly all-white male line-up.

In separate appearances, a Republican political consultant called the low number of rape and incest victims a “minor issue” in the abortion debate, and GOP lieutenant governor candidate Dan Patrick dismissed the idea that government should be involved in pay disparity issues for women.

Both Democratic governor nominee Wendy Davis and lieutenant governor nominee Leticia Van de Putte sent out fundraising pleas on Monday, citing the GOP male statements.

Patrick was asked about the problem of unequal pay for women at a public forum and responded, “I don’t think it is a problem.”

“I don’t think government should tell businesses how to pay their staff,” he said.

On the equal pay issue, Texas Democratic Party spokeswoman Lisa Paul said Patrick’s dismissal shows that he is out-of-touch with the realities that women face in the workplace.

“Despite Dan Patrick’s nonchalance and insensitivity, Texas women know they deserve equal pay for equal work,” she said, citing statistics that show that Texas women make 79 cents on the dollar for the same work as men.

“If Dan Patrick wants to lead Texas he should be ready to tell our young women that if they work hard, they can expect a fair paycheck and equality in the workplace. Instead he plans to sit by and pretend this is not an issue that affects every family in Texas,” Paul said.

In an appearance on Lone Star Politics on KXAS-TV (NBC5), GOP consultant Matt Mackowiak was asked about Greg Abbott’s belief that abortion should be outlawed, even in cases of rape and incest.

“We can get into minor issues that are one or two percent of the problem, but ultimately Texas is a strong pro-life state,” Mackowiak said.

When challenged whether victims of those crimes would consider it minor, Mackowiak clarified, “It’s minor in terms of the percentage of the cases.”

Yvonne Gutierrez, executive director of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, said no sexual assault survivor would call their experience “minor.”

She also called Mackowiak’s comment “demeaning and offensive.”

In her press release, Gutierrez claimed Mackowiak is an adviser to the Greg Abbott campaign for governor, but he is not.

Davis and Van de Putte said they plan to speak further on the flare-up at a joint appearance in Dallas on Tuesday for Annie’s List, a group that raises money for women candidates who are for abortion rights.

The right smiles as Vegas exits RNC 2016 field

Las Vegas' famous Strip. (Las Vegas News Bureau/Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority)

WASHINGTON — The GOP would have faced a mutiny from social and religious conservatives if it had picked Las Vegas for the 2016 convention.

Key leaders on the right warned party chairman Reince Priebus away from Sin City, as we reported last month.

As if that pressure wasn’t enough, the Nevada Republican Party invited even more a few weeks later, when it dropped rejection of same-sex marriage and abortion rights from its platform. Evangelicals were appalled.

Vegas host committee leaders sought to save face Thursday by saying they voluntarily withdrew from the competition, citing not the image issues but concerns about scheduling and preparing the city’s massive convention center. Whatever the true reasons, the right was thrilled.

“We are pleased to learn today that Las Vegas has withdrawn its bid to become a host city — a decision that comes only weeks after the state party ignited a party-wide firestorm by stripping pro-life and pro-natural marriage language from its state platform,” said Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council.

“After two failed presidential cycles, the GOP can’t afford to jettison the planks of life and marriage, which would only alienate a segment of voters which is the difference between victory and defeat,” he said.

Appeals judges grill both sides over Texas abortion law

NEW ORLEANS – Appellate judges on Monday challenged lawyers over provisions of Texas’ new abortion law and whether they have unduly caused the closure of about a dozen abortion clinics.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals bore down in particular on the shuttering of the only two abortion clinics in the Rio Grande Valley.

The lack of facilities is now requiring women seeking the procedure to travel about 150 miles to a Corpus Christi clinic.

State Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell defended the state law, saying the state has a right to regulate medical practices as a way to promote women’s health.
“The law does not impose an undue burden,” he told the court.

At issue are two provisions that went into effect last fall. The first mandates that all doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of their clinics.

Doctors at some of the state’s 34 abortion clinics have failed to win such privileges, forcing the closure of 12 clinics. Since November, three more clinics have re-opened as doctors receive admitting privileges.

Both the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists oppose the law, saying there is no medical basis for doctors having hospital privileges.

They point out such privileges are generally a matter of how many patients a doctor checks into a hospital and not a review of their abilities or standards of care.

“The admitting privilege law is not only unnecessary, it is not benign,” Janet Crepps, attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the judges.

She pointed out the professional medical associations’ belief that the statute “will jeopardize the health of women seeking abortions,” by making them travel distances and delay the procedure because of the lack of availability.

Judge Edith Jones was openly skeptical of the abortion rights arguments, saying 150 miles to Corpus Christi did not seem to raise a high hurdle.

Continue reading →

Supreme Court won’t block Texas abortion restrictions

Abortion rights advocates protest state restrictions in the Texas Capitol.

WASHINGTON — A divided U.S. Supreme Court refused Tuesday to block new Texas restrictions on abortion clinics.

Planned Parenthood and other groups turned to the high court two weeks ago after losing at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Oct. 28, U.S District Judge Lee Yeakel issued an injunction, blocking implementation of the law, which requires abortion providers in Texas to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott appealed to the 5th Circuit, which lifted the injunction on Oct. 31. That court will hear the case in January.

In the meantime, more than a dozen clinics across the state have halted abortion services. The procedure is no longer available in about one-third of the state.

Abortion providers turned to the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping to have the 5th Circuit ruling overturned.

“This is good news both for the unborn and for the women of Texas, who are now better protected from shoddy abortion providers operating in dangerous conditions,” Gov. Rick Perry said in a statement. “As always, Texas will continue doing everything we can to protect the culture of life in our state.”

Justices supporting the ruling wrote here.

“Reasonable minds can perhaps disagree about whether the Court of Appeals should have granted a stay in this case,” they wrote, but those seeking to block the Texas law pending trial fell far short of the required legal standards for the high court to step in. “It would flout core principles of federalism by mandating postponement of a state law without asserting that the law is even probably unconstitutional.“

Four liberal justices dissented. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote: “Although the injunction will ultimately be reinstated if the law is indeed invalid, the harms to the individual women whose rights it restricts while it remains in effect will be permanent.”

Abortion rights advocates were deeply disappointed.

“This isn’t over,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “This is outrageous and unacceptable -– and also demonstrates why we need stronger federal protections for women’s health.  Your rights and your ability to make your own medical decisions should not depend on your zip code.”

“The promise of our constitution and our judicial system is the equal protection of our rights against attacks like this law singling out women and the doctors they depend on. Today’s decision fundamentally fails to fulfill that promise for Texas women,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “The shattering stories of women turned away at clinic doors and denied their constitutional right to abortion are already numerous, and they multiply every single day this underhanded law is enforced.

 

Patrick, Staples stalk Dewhurst in Texas lieutenant governor debate

Sen. Dan Patrick, at an August education debate in Tyler (AP Photo/The Tyler Morning Telegraph, Herb Nygren Jr)

CLEAR LAKE — In the lieutenant governor’s race, Sen. Dan Patrick has taken up where Ted Cruz left off last year – relentlessly pounding Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst as weak and compromising with Democrats in the Texas Senate.

This year, though, there are two nimble and skilled debaters ripping into Dewhurst, Patrick and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples.

At a tea party-sponsored debate Thursday, Staples fired almost as many barbs at Dewhurst as did Patrick.

With slightly differing emphasis, the two challengers say that GOP voters should dump Dewhurst because of growth in the state budget, his appointments of Democrats and his failure to deny Democratic Sen. Wendy Davis a chance to filibuster an abortion bill in June.

The fourth candidate in the March 4 primary, Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, trains most of his criticism on Patrick and Staples. It’s almost as if he presumes the incumbent is toast. (In the debate, Patterson underscored how Patrick and Staples have joined him in supporting a guest worker program, and said he is as hard-line on immigration as they.)

As Dewhurst did while losing in the U.S. Senate race to Cruz, he fell back at the Clear Lake event on how he helped pass 54 tax cuts and hold the line on budget creep. In the decade he’s presided over the Senate, he said he helped craft six budgets that cumulatively spent 11 percent less of general-purpose state revenue than if spending grew apace with inflation and state population growth.

Patrick, though, said the budget passed earlier this year was reckless – too popular with Democrats.

“So you take full credit for a budget that every Democrat praised and voted for and four conservative Republicans like myself voted against?” he asked Dewhurst.

Dewhurst replied, “Senator, senator, I take credit for a budget that was under inflation and population growth. I don’t take credit for the fact that $3.4 billion of new money was put into the budget on public education on your [and] the Democrats’ insistence. I know you’re upset that there were two programs for about $100 million that didn’t go in that were … your projects.”

Patrick bored in, using the D word.

“Again, every Democrat praised and voted for the budget,” he said.

Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, speaking in Dallas in July (David Woo/Staff photographer)

Staples waited until late in the debate, which lasted more than two hours, to dig Dewhurst for poor clock and floor management on the abortion-restrictions bill. In the year’s first special legislative session, it died in the Senate after Davis launched a filibuster, which Republicans shut down. An unruly crowd opposed to the measure disrupted the proceedings as time ran out.

Dewhurst noted lawmakers quickly passed the bill in a second special session in July.

“What is your definition of success?” he asked Staples. “Isn’t it the scoreboard at the end of the day? … We beat Wendy Davis. We beat Obama coming down here. All of those people came down here and we sent them back. … We stood tall for Texas.”

Staples countered that Dewhurst helped make Davis “a national hero” and launch her bid for governor.

“My definition of success is not giving her a platform to attract a liberal element that’s going to come into our state and cost us down-ballot seats,” he said.

“We’re going to lose swing House seats … in Harris County and in Dallas County and in other counties because now she has been showcased,” Staples said. “It should have never happened. And we’re all going to pay for that.”

Dewhurst countered, “You know the rules.” Senate rules allow for filibusters.

Staples replied that Dewhurst should have made sure the bill passed in the regular session. And he said “leaving their post” at a crucial time, as he said Dewhurst did, would be enough to get most employees fired.

“Don’t go out to dinner with your political consultant when that bill is on the floor,” Staples said, referring to Dewhurst’s brief absence from the chamber on the night of the filibuster.

Before Dewhurst could respond, debate moderator JoAnn Fleming of Tyler shut down the two men’s exchange.

“Gentlemen, I will advise you all to continue this debate in Tyler on Oct. 12,” she said. “So that ends the questions of tonight.”

Advocacy groups, providers sue Texas over new abortion restrictions

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, stands with Texas state senators as she speaks at a news conference outside the Texas Capitol as the Texas House prepares to begin debate on an abortion bill, Tuesday, July 9, 2013, in Austin, Texas. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Abortion rights advocates filed a lawsuit Friday to overturn two elements of the state’s new abortion law set to take effect Oct. 29.

The suit claims it is unconstitutional for the state to mandate how doctors practice medicine especially when it countermands current best practices. The provision being challenged requires that physicians administering abortion pills follow FDA protocol, which opponents say is outdated and causes unnecessary side effects. The second challenge in the lawsuit is against the mandate that doctors gain admitting privileges at local hospitals

The Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union are asking a federal judge to ban the law from taking effect as scheduled at the end of next month.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott speaks during an anti-abortion rally at the Texas Capitol, Monday, July 8, 2013, in Austin, Texas. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican candidate for governor, has been clear about his support for the law. He will represent the state of Texas in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

“When the battle leaves the statehouse, it is going to wind up in the courthouse,” Abbott said at an anti-abortion rally at the Capitol in July. “And when it does, in me you have an attorney general who has your back.”

Already, four abortion clinics announced they would close their doors as a result of the new law.

The law requires physicians performing surgical abortions or administering abortion pills to have admitting privileges at a hospital less than 30 miles from where the abortion is performed.

The law’s supporters say this provision is necessary because it allows the physicians to handle any emergency follow up care themselves. But hospitals are reluctant to extend privileges to doctors that don’t work there.

Each hospital can have different qualifications for obtaining privileges, including a minimum number of surgical hours logged, board certification, and personal preference.

Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, has only secured admitting privileges for two or the five abortion clinics she operates.

“It remains to be seen if I’ll be able to secure privileges for all of my physicians,” she said.

Court action stalled the implementation of similar laws in four of the eight states where they were passed.

The other issue challenged by the lawsuit is the requirement that abortion providers administering abortion-inducing medication follow FDA protocol.

State obstetricians testified against the protocol, saying that dosage amounts and administration techniques have been updated since the FDA’s approval over a decade ago.

Women will need to make a minimum of four trips to the doctor’s office in order to meet the requirements of both the new abortion law and the sonogram law, which went into effect in 2012.

Of the three states requiring doctors to follow FDA protocol, two have been overturned by the courts, but a similar law in Ohio has been upheld on appeal.

Supporters of the law say it’s designed to protect women’s health and make sure they are getting the best medical care, but opponents say it was created to shut down clinics.

The lawsuit does not challenge the ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Already, less than one percent of all abortions are performed after 20 weeks, though they can legally be provided for up to 24 weeks until Oct. 29th.

The requirement that all abortion facilities meet surgical center standards does not go into effect until next year, and was also not included in the lawsuit.

Abortion advocacy groups poised to file lawsuit over Texas’ new abortion law

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund speaks at a Planned Parenthood news conference on abortion legislation at Dallas City Hall on July 10, 2013. (Vernon Bryant/The Dallas Morning News)

Abortion rights groups have announced a press conference, apparently to announce a lawsuit challenging the state’s new abortion restrictions set to take effect Oct. 29.

On Friday morning, the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood said they will announce “a new joint effort in support of women’s health.”

These three groups have come together in the past to challenge similar restrictions in other states.

The new law, going into effect at the end of next month, includes a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Additionally, it requires physicians performing surgical abortions or administering abortion-inducing medication to have admitting privileges at a hospital less than 30 miles from where the abortion is performed. Physicians will also be required to follow FDA protocol when administering abortion-inducing medication.

Another requirement that all abortion facilities meet the same standards as surgical centers goes into effect next year.