WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 33

Relating to certain prohibited transactions and logistical support between a governmental entity and an abortion assistance entity or abortion provider for the procurement of an abortion or related services.

89th Legislature (2025) Introduced by Daniel Alders and 71 co-sponsors

Texas prohibits state and local governments from transacting with or supporting abortion providers or assistance organizations, effective September 2025.

Effective on 9/1/25
#abortion(i0005) #citygovernment--general(i0060) #civilremedies&liabilities(i0065) #countygovernment--general(i0096) #courts--civilprocedure(i0135) #medicine&prescriptiondrugs(s7338) #pregnancy&childbirth(s0294) #politicalsubdivisions(i0588) #stateagencies #boards&commissions(i0749) #statefinances--management&control(i0748) #travel(s0220)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 33

Legislative bill overview

SB 33 prohibits Texas governmental entities from engaging in transactions or providing logistical support to abortion providers or organizations that assist with abortion services. The law effectively bars state and local governments from contracting with, funding, or providing resources to entities involved in abortion provision or assistance, becoming effective September 1, 2025.

Why is this important

This legislation extends Texas's existing abortion restrictions beyond individual conduct to governmental operations, preventing public institutions from indirect involvement in abortion services. It represents a significant expansion of state-level abortion policy enforcement mechanisms with potential implications for government procurement, public health coordination, and employee benefits administration.

Potential points of contention

  • Scope ambiguity: The definition of "abortion assistance entity" and what constitutes prohibited "logistical support" may be interpreted broadly, potentially affecting organizations providing financial counseling, transportation, or housing assistance to individuals seeking abortions out-of-state.
  • Constitutional challenges: Opponents may argue the law restricts governmental discretion and potentially conflicts with constitutional protections around travel, association, or interstate commerce.
  • Implementation complications: Government entities may face operational challenges determining which vendors or partners qualify as prohibited entities, and the law lacks explicit enforcement mechanisms or penalties.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.