HEALTHCARE & 
MEDICAL CONCERNS

AMARILLO SCFTU ORDINANCE ON MEDICAL EMERGENCIES 
The Amarillo SCFTU Ordinance states, in the second declaration, “abortion at all times and at all stages of pregnancy is an unlawful act, unless the abortion is performed to save the life of the pregnant woman in a medical emergency.” The term “Medical emergency” is defined in the ordinance to mean “a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.” The ordinance states, time and time again, that it does not prohibit “abortions performed or induced in response to a medical emergency, or any conduct that aids or abets or attempts to aid or abet such abortions'' and is also clear that it does not prohibit “conduct taken by a licensed medical professional that is necessary to perform, induce, or facilitate an abortion in response to a medical emergency, or to ensure that the licensed medical professional is prepared to perform, induce, or facilitate an abortion in response to a medical emergency, so long as that conduct is not in any way intended to facilitate an elective abortion.” 

THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ON MEDICAL EMERGENCIES 
On May 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled in Zurawski v. State of Texas , a case which claimed that language in Texas abortion laws allowing for abortions in cases of the life of the mother was not adequate to protect women’s health. The case was brought by several women who claimed that Texas laws against abortion risked their lives. Among these women were: Amanda Zurawski, Lauren Miller, and Austin Dennard, D.O. The defendants in the case included: The State of Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton, and the Texas Medical Board. The Supreme Court of Texas ruled against Zurawski and in favor of the State of Texas. Justice Bland’s opinion of the court, in part, reads: 

Texas law permits a life-saving abortion. A physician cannot be fined or disciplined for performing an abortion when the physician, exercising reasonable medical judgment, concludes (1) a pregnant woman has a life-threatening physical condition, and (2) that condition poses a risk of death or serious physical impairment unless an abortion is performed. After the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, current Texas law otherwise generally prohibits performing an abortion. Under the Human Life Protection Act, a woman with a life-threatening physical condition and her physician have the legal authority to proceed with an abortion to save the woman’s life or major bodily function, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment and with the woman’s informed consent. As our Court recently held, the law does not require that a woman’s death be imminent or that she first suffer physical impairment. Rather, Texas law permits a physician to address the risk that a life-threatening condition poses before a woman suffers the consequences of that risk. A physician who tells a patient, “Your life is threatened by a complication that has arisen during your pregnancy, and you may die, or there is a serious risk you will suffer substantial physical impairment unless an abortion is performed,” and in the same breath states “but the law won’t allow me to provide an abortion in these circumstances” is simply wrong in that legal assessment. Given this construction, we conclude that Dr. Karsan has not demonstrated that the part of the Human Life Protection Act that permits life-saving abortion is narrower than the Texas Constitution allows. Because the trial court’s injunction departed from the law without constitutional justification, we vacate its order. 

Two of the plaintiffs in the case, Amanda Zurawski and Lauren Miller, submitted testimony in opposition to the Amarillo SCFTU Ordinance before the Amarillo City Council. Despite the Texas Supreme Court’s clear ruling, groups like the Amarillo Reproductive Freedom Alliance (ARFA) ignore reality as they continue to spread misinformation about Texas abortion laws, SCFTU Ordinances, and the topic of abortions and medical emergencies. ARFA’s website states, “Impact on Medical Emergencies: People facing medical emergencies may need to travel out of state for healthcare, but the ordinance penalizes the travel and support for it.” As clearly

AMARILLO SCFTU ORDINANCE

KEY DEFINITION: 
MEDICAL EMERGENCY

Medical emergency is defined in the ordinance to mean “a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.”

HEARING FROM THE EXPERTS: ABORTION IS NOT HEALTHCARE

Karysse J. Hutson, D.O., FACOOG, is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologic surgeon and an associate scholar with the Charlotte Lozier Institute. She is also Founder and CEO of Canopy Global Foundation, a non-profit organization working internationally to relieve the suffering of the unborn and those facing an unplanned pregnancy as well as preventing human trafficking and exploitation. Dr. Hutson acts as a consultant and educator to local, national, and international government leaders, healthcare professionals, civic leaders, and school students. Dr. Hutson completed distinguished research fellowships at both the National Institutes of Health in Washington, D.C. and the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland during her residency at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Hutson currently acts as National Medical Director and Board Member for the pro-life organization Save the Storks. She also works as Medical Director and Physician at the Pregnancy Resource Center of Southwest Florida clinics, supporting life by caring holistically for women with an unplanned pregnancy. She is an Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology for the University of Central Florida, College of Medicine. As the recipient of numerous local, national, and international awards for patient care and research, Dr. Hutson brings excellence and expertise to the patients and international government, hospital, and community audiences she serves throughout the world, having now traveled in over 45 countries. Bio from www.lozierinstitute.org. 

In January 2021, at the Lubbock March for Life, Dr. Karysse J. Hutson (then Trandem, as it was prior to her marriage) shared that “Healthcare is not abortion.” and compiled several risks to women who undergo an abortion. The doctor shared, 

“The risks to women are four-fold. 1) Breast Cancer. Women who have one abortion have a 30-40% increased risk of breast cancer in their lifetime. 2) Preterm Birth. Women who have a surgical abortion have a 36% increased chance of having a preterm birth because their cervix was damaged from an abortion. (3) Uterine Damage. There can be a hemorrhage that occurs when an active pregnancy is separated from the wall of the uterus. That can lead to severe hemorrhage, even death, and scarring that prevents future pregnancies. (4) Mental Health Issues. Women who have one abortion have an 81% increased risk of having emotional health problems that stays with them for the rest of their life such as high rates of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicide.” 

In October 2022, Dr. Karysse Hutson took part in an event called Pro-Life Abilene, which was a panel discussion on Abilene’s SCFTU Ordinance. The following is part of the transcript from that discussion: 

Pastor Scott Beard : A local obstetrician has expressed much concern that the Texas Heartbeat Act and the Human Life Protection Act are hurting women in the state of Texas. These concerns have caused her to be the most outspoken medical professional against the SCFTU Initiative in the City of Abilene. She's even accused Project Destiny Abilene, the PAC behind the campaign, of propagating false claims on our website. She has accused us that these claims are not based on medical truth. The claims on our website, which were the same claims used in Lubbock, were actually claims which we received from you relating to abortion leading to increased levels of breast cancer, mental health problems in women, and an elevated chance of preterm birth. Now, here’s the question, “Why do you believe some medical professionals are not arriving at the same conclusion that you have arrived at regarding the aftermath of abortion?” 

Dr. Karysse Hutson: It is not uncommon for activist pro-choice physicians to disagree with the research that abortion causes breast cancer and causes mental health damage. But the facts are that all of the research studies from around the world, if you compile all of them that have been completed studying the link between abortion and breast cancer, they agree that there is a 40-44% increased risk of breast cancer after having had one abortion. And that's not just coming from the United States. That's coming from China, from Dr. Huang. After the one child policy was put into place he performed a large study because they noticed breast cancer was significantly on the rise and they also proved it is linked directly to abortion. And these studies are not always done by pro-life physicians. These studies are often done by pro-abortion physicians. But it is true  that there is an increased risk. Similarly, it's the same with mental health issues and abortion. An incredible study out of the United Kingdom, that was peer reviewed and put out in a major medical journal, proved an 81% increased risk of a chronic mental health problem in women who have had just one abortion. So, abortion harms women. Abortion is not health care. To be pro-abortion is to be anti-woman. And not only the moms are being affected, I want to note that every year there are two million female babies aborted because of sex selection abortion just because they are a female - they are aborted two million a year. So again, abortion is not good for women in the grand scheme of things and also not good for the woman who is having to suffer in that procedure. 

Pastor Scott Beard: Another kind of follow up question. Let's look at what some may consider the hard cases. One example would be if a mother is pregnant with a baby that has a lethal abnormality, such as a child suffering from anencephaly, a serious birth defect in which a baby is born without parts of their brain or their skull. In those cases, is an abortion ever appropriate? 

Dr. Karysse Hutson: The answer is no. An abortion actually harms the mom when she has a baby with a lethal fetal abnormality, like anencephaly. That baby for sure cannot live outside of the womb if the mother aborts that baby. We know the same risks of abortion are true for her. An increased risk of breast cancer, significantly. An increased risk of mental health damage, even if she knew the baby couldn't live outside of the womb. An increased risk of uterine damage and also an increased risk of preterm birth if that mom were to get pregnant again in the future. There are studies that prove that moms who carry their babies as long as they can until the body delivers that baby, treasure the time they have spent with those babies. I am talking about babies who aren't compatible with life outside of the womb. Those moms say 100%, across the board, “I treasured the time I had with my child inside the womb and even the few moments outside of the womb.” These testimonies are not just from Christian women or pro-life women, these are from women who are pro-abortion - women who are pro-choice. They still all agree it was less traumatic for them to deliver the baby on the baby's terms. It is emotionally less traumatic for them, but also less traumatic in regards to the physical consequences. 

It is much less risky for women to carry those babies to term. In fact, carrying a baby to term (which is 40 weeks gestational age) is protective for the breasts. Women who have a delivery at term have a decreased risk of getting breast cancer. Abortion is an extra trauma, and having an abortion is an additional compounding trauma for women who have a baby with a fetal birth defect. 

Pastor Scott Beard: What about a situation where someone's water breaks during their first trimester or early in their second trimester? Should an abortion be done at that time? 

Dr. Karysse Hutson: That's a great question. If a woman's water breaks in the first trimester, but she doesn't go into labor, her body has the ability to actually reseal that bag of water or the amnion - that is the technical medical term. I've had many patients who do have an early rupture of membranes, but then their body reseals that amnion and they can continue to carry their pregnancy. If, in the case that the water breaks and there is no ability for that amnion to reseal, there is typically an infection that is going on inside of the uterus. In that case, the mother can attempt to continue to carry the pregnancy until she begins to really show signs of infection herself. Sometimes that infection can be warded off with antibiotics and she can continue the pregnancy for months and months in the hospital because the baby reproduces their own amniotic fluid. So even if she is leaking every day, the baby is still reproducing that amniotic fluid and her body is still reproducing that amniotic fluid. If she is infected, despite having the antibiotics, then typically her body will deliver the baby early on its own. If that does not happen, if the mom is so sick and for whatever reason her body does not deliver and the realization is made that she could die of sepsis if she continued this pregnancy, then we would induce labor. That is not an elective abortion, that is a medical separation of the pregnancy from the mother so that physically the mom can continue her life. We see this in cases of ectopic pregnancy as well. That is when a pregnancy is formed outside of the uterus, in a fallopian tube, for example. That baby cannot survive in the fallopian tube and the mom cannot survive if that fallopian tube ruptures. In that case, once again, it is not an elective abortion. It is a medical separation of the pregnancy from the mother so that the mother can physically stay alive.

Additionally, many pro-abortion states have passed “shield laws” preventing accountability for law-breaking abortionists who provide abortions that injure women from other states. No law enforcement investigation or extradition, no wrongful death or malpractice lawsuits, no discipline against the abortionist’s license. If an abortionist in New York mails these dangerous drugs to my patient in Texas, leading to her death, shouldn’t he be held accountable? If abortion is really “women’s healthcare,” as euphemistically promoted, shouldn’t it be held to the same standards of other women’s healthcare? Is the point of abortion only the death of the unborn child? Are the women being harmed merely collateral damage that abortion advocates are willing to accept? We must move beyond euphemisms and acknowledge that we are ending human life largely for social and financial reasons. The shattered lives of women around our country demonstrate conclusively that women need us to do better and offer true solutions to their problems, rather than defaulting to ending the lives of their children. 

What does true “care” for women with an unintended pregnancy look like? We must ask, is abortion the best “care” for a healthy woman carrying a healthy child, the situation occurring in over 95% of U.S. abortions? What reasons are sufficient to warrant ending human life? Social? Relational? Financial? Societal problems? Many, like me, believe that ending a life in these situations is an inadequate and violent response to women’s complex problems and fails to address the root causes of their crises. There are nearly 3,000 pregnancy centers in our country providing free ultrasounds and other medical services, education, emotional, material, and mental health support for women. 97% of clients report a positive experience, demonstrating that these centers are meeting the unspoken needs of many women. Sometimes, a woman just needs someone to tell her she is strong enough to become a mother, to empower her to give birth to her child, as pro-life health care providers such as I, and the pregnancy centers I work with, have done on many occasions. Bringing the father on board through relationship counseling will also encourage the stability of the family and reduce the incidence of single mothers living in poverty, raising fatherless children, resulting in many of the pervasive social ills our country is experiencing today. Likewise, the states with laws protecting unborn life have also generously expanded funding of broad social support nets and alternatives to abortion programs. In my own state of Texas, the legislature committed $140 million over 2024-2025 to its Alternatives to Abortion program, which is available for Texas residents during pregnancy and up to three years after the baby is born. Women’s problems are therefore addressed directly through housing, care coordination, referrals to government programs, job training, free parenting classes, baby supplies and more. Women need support to address their real and unique challenges. Abortion has never pulled a woman out of addiction. Abortion has never found housing for women facing homelessness. Abortion will never help a woman escape an abusive partner. Genuine support from her community does. This is the real care that women deserve. 

Unwanted abortion and abortion coercion: In a peer-reviewed study based on a survey of over 200 American women ages 41 to 45 with a history of an abortion, more than 60% of the women recalled feeling pressured to choose. This pressure came from finances, life circumstances, or other people in their lives. Interpersonal pressure was most strongly associated with negative mental and emotional outcomes, including intrusive thoughts, feelings of grief or sadness, and interference with daily life and work. In a follow-up study based on the same survey, only a third of the women described their abortions as wanted and consistent with their values and preferences. 43% described their abortions as accepted but inconsistent with their values and preferences; 14% described them as unwanted; and 10% felt coerced. 60% of the women would have preferred to give birth if they had had more financial security or emotional support. An additional study from this same survey, but focusing on women who did not have abortions, demonstrated that as women recalled their experiences with problematic pregnancies, they reported that their attitude quickly changed to welcome their unborn child. This research reinforces findings from the National Survey of Family Growth indicating that 15% of all abortions occur for wanted pregnancies. Other research has found that nearly two thirds of women who had had abortions described feeling pressured by other people. In the United Kingdom, a BBC survey suggests that 15% of all women reported having received pressure to undergo an abortion they did not want. Sometimes, abortion coercion can take the form of attempting to force an abortion without a woman’s knowledge or consent. Recently, Louisiana enacted stronger protections against abortion coercion after the bill sponsor’s sister suffered an attempted forced abortion. The woman’s ex-husband was convicted of repeatedly attempting to dose his pregnant ex-wife with abortion-inducing drugs in order to kill their unborn daughter. In a similar case in 2022, a Wisconsin man was sentenced to prison after he spiked his partner’s water bottle with abortion drugs while she was in the bathroom. In 2018, a Virginia doctor was sentenced to prison after he dosed his girlfriend’s tea with abortion-inducing drugs, resulting in the death of her unborn child. 

Evidence-based medicine? It is often assumed, without evidence, that women benefit from the ability to abort their children for social, financial and other difficulties, the reasons for more than 95% of abortions in our country. Though pro-abortion medical organizations allege it is an evidencebased intervention, one must ask, what is the disease being treated? Pregnancy is a normal physiologic function for a healthy woman. What are the outcomes being measured? Has abortion ever been compared to no treatment, that is, delivering the child? There have been no quality trials addressing any of these critical questions, only unsubstantiated assumptions. There is no conclusive evidence to support the frequent assumption that abortion is necessary “care” for women. 

Prenatal diagnosis: Sadly, women who have tragically received a prenatal diagnosis of a life-limiting fetal condition are being used to promote abortion ideology. They are often being told by their physicians that immediately ending their disabled child’s life through abortion is the compassionate option, but the doctors evidently fail to reveal that a brutal dismemberment D&E procedure in a pain capable child is anything but compassionate. There is no conclusive evidence to support the frequent assumption that abortion is necessary “care” for women. - Dr. Ingrid Skop In many cases, these heartbroken women are denied informed consent. An informed decision requires receiving information about the baby’s condition, how it is affecting her baby, and whether there are any potential treatments as each individual baby is unique. Some fetal conditions that may be considered “life-limiting” such as Trisomy 13 or 18 can affect individual babies in different ways. In the U.S., babies with T13 or T18 who underwent surgery to treat heart issues had a median survival of 15 or 16 years. Parents receiving a prenatal diagnosis should also receive information about perinatal palliative care, where a multi-disciplinary team walks alongside the woman, unborn child and family, discusses treatment options and pain management, and allows the child’s life to be treated with respect and dignity. The family can hold and say “good-bye” to their youngest member, whom they love. The mother does not have her grief compounded by recognizing that she made the choice to end her child’s life. I have found this approach to be comforting when my patients have encountered this tragic situation, improving their grief response. 

Conclusion: Our nation has endured more than 50 years of the failed experiment of offering abortion as the solution to women’s problems, and we find that women, children and families are worse off in almost every respect than they were before “a woman’s right to choose” to end the life of her child was enshrined into our social contract. We see more single mothers raising children in poverty, more child abuse, mental health disorders, and family breakdown now than before Roe. Women need us to do better and offer real support for their challenges, not the violence of ending the lives of their children. I would like to see our country turn in a different direction, to return to the belief that children are a blessing, not a burden, and that women are strong and courageous enough to bring forth the next generation of children to enrich our country and the world. As a doctor who has spent my entire career caring for both my patients – mom and baby – I urge us all to offer them real care and support. 

Referenced studies and additional information are available upon request.

AMARILLO SCFTU ORDINANCE

KEY DEFINITION: 
ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS

Abortion-inducing drugs includes mifepristone, misoprostol, and any drug or medication that is used to terminate the life of an unborn child. The term does not include: Plan B, morning-after pills, intrauterine devices, or any other type of contraception or emergency contraception; or Drugs or medications that are possessed or distributed for a purpose that does not include the termination of a pregnancy, such as misoprostol that is possessed or distributed for the purpose of treating stomach ulcers.

ALTERNATIVES TO ABORTION PROGRAM 

The Texas Health and Human Services website describes the Thriving Texas Families program (formerly known as the Alternatives to Abortion Program) as a statewide support network promoting healthy pregnancy and childbirth. The program, highlighted in Finding #5 of the Amarillo SCFTU Ordinance, “Promotes childbirth as an alternative to abortion; Increases access to resources that promote family and child development; Encourages family formation; Help parents establish and implement successful parenting techniques; Increases the number of families who achieve economic self-sufficiency; and Provides a local approach and personalized support to pregnant women to promote childbirth in all instances of pregnancy.” 

The Thriving Texas Families program provides, “Counseling and mentoring on pregnancy, education, parenting skills, adoption services, life skills and employment readiness topics; Care coordination for prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal services, including connecting participants to health services; Educational materials and information about pregnancy, parenting and adoption services; Referrals to governmental and social service programs, including child care, transportation, housing, and state and federal benefit programs; Classes on life skills, personal finance, parenthood, stress management, job training, job readiness, job placement and educational attainment; Provision of supplies for infant care and pregnancy, including car seats, cribs, maternity clothes, infant diapers and formula; and Housing services.” 

The program is available to any Texas resident who is, “A pregnant woman; The biological father of an unborn child; The biological parent of a child who is 36 months of age (3 years old) or younger; An adoptive parent of a child who is 36 months of age (3 years old) or younger; An approved adoptive parent of an unborn child; A former participant who has experienced the loss of a child; A parent or legal guardian of a pregnant minor who is a program client; The parent, legal guardian or adult caregiver of a child who is 36 months of age (3 years old) or younger; or The parent who experienced a miscarriage or loss of a child not more than 90 days before the parent begins participation in the services offered through the program.” 

For more information about this program, visit: www.hhs.texas.gov/services/health/women-children/thriving-texas-families

TEXAS GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT 
SUPPORTS THE CRITICAL 
ALTERNATIVES TO ABORTION PROGRAM 
HIGHLIGHTED IN THE AMARILLO SCFTU ORDINANCE

When the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2024, Texas Governor Greg Abbott released the following statement, which highlighted the Alternatives to Abortion Program: 

"The U.S. Supreme Court correctly overturned Roe v. Wade and reinstated the right of states to protect innocent, unborn children. Texas is a pro-life state, and we have taken significant action to protect the sanctity of life. Texas has also prioritized supporting women's healthcare and expectant mothers in need to give them the necessary resources so that they can choose life for their child. 

I signed laws that extended Medicaid health care coverage to six months post-partum, appropriated $345 million for women's health programs, and invested more than $100 million toward our Alternatives to Abortion program. This critical program provides counseling, mentoring, care coordination, and material assistance, such as car seats, diapers, and housing to mothers in need. 

Texas will always fight for the innocent unborn, and I will continue working with the Texas legislature and all Texans to save every child from the ravages of abortion and help our expectant mothers in need."