Registration is OPEN!

Dear {name},

This week, the legislature adjourned "sine die" again—the third time this year legislators have adjourned with no plans to reconvene till 2027. Hopefully the third time's the charm.

Now, we are in the veto period for the second special session. The governor has until September 24 to veto bills from this special session.

One reason bills get vetoed is concerns about unintended consequences. For example, Texas Impact recommends the governor veto Senate Bill 8, the bathroom bill, which we anticipate will have unintended fiscal consequences for local governments.

Of course, lawmakers often pass legislation in spite of warnings that their bills will have unintended consequences—but it’s rare to watch the consequences manifest before the legislation even takes effect. That’s the case with House Bill 7, the so-called “abortion pill ban.” The legislature finally passed HB 7, but the drama around HB 7 isn’t over: a legal battle related to the bill is playing out in real time, before it can even take effect.

Luckily, it’s not too late to stop HB 7 before it causes lasting damage. Urge the governor to veto HB 7.

Texas Impact has been among the chorus of voices warning that using “private right of action” as a mechanism to enforce Texas’ abortion ban would lead to meritless lawsuits. We sounded the alarm about the lack of anti-SLAPP protection, the large bounty for victorious plaintiffs, and the legal exposure for unsuspecting businesses that sell everyday products with a chance of leading to miscarriage.

Under HB 7, someone who was framed with false claims that they had distributed or administered abortion-inducing medication could not receive attorneys' fees even if they defeated the HB 7 claim. They could sue the “qui tam relator” (the person who sued based on false claims) for defamation, but only if they have the money to do so.

And in fact, dueling lawsuits in Corpus Christi show that scenario playing out right now. A woman is suing her boyfriend over allegedly spiking her drink with abortion pills, and he is counter-suing her for $1.1B for intentionally framing him with false claims—in other words, for lying. In a press conference this morning, the man’s pro bono lawyer, Mikal Watts, cited HB 7, saying the legislation will make it easy to file frivolous lawsuits.

Watts also suggested that the timing of the lawsuit was coordinated with the filing of HB 7 and its predecessors in the regular and special legislative sessions, pointing out that the allegations against his client were offered in committee testimony in support of HB 7.

Watch: Mark Lee Dixon, Texas Right to Life, and Rep. Anchia discuss penalties for abortion-inducing drugs

Regardless of which party prevails in the Corpus Christi lawsuit, the case already is demonstrating how easily HB 7 will generate lawsuits: in the Corpus Christi case, the defendant is being sued for wrongful death under existing law, but under HB 7, the plaintiff could sue the manufacturer, the distributor, and the administrator of the drugs. If the plaintiff in Corpus Christi is found to be lying, the finding will imply that the testimony on HB 7 related to the false claim was perjured, or at least incorrect, which in turn will have implications for the process by which the legislation was passed.

Under these circumstances, the wise choice would be to scrap HB 7 and rethink the bill’s underlying mechanism of delegating law enforcement to private individuals.

Legislators also could consider the circumstances under which HB 7 passed. In the second called session, lawmakers rushed through the legislative process several major items, including HB 7, that have many and diverse stakeholders, with truncated hearings or no hearings at all. HB 7 underwent major changes from its filed version, which in turn was significantly different from versions of the bill filed in earlier sessions, but legislators only saw the final version of the bill shortly before it came up in floor debate. As one senator asked rhetorically, why should the public trust the process?