focus on the doctor, texas state rep. tony tinderholt (r) introduced a bill in 2017 and 2019 that may enable the death penalty in texas for women who have abortions, and the ohio legislature considered a similar bill in 2018. on february 7, 2019, briscoe cain, a member of the texas house of representatives, introduced an early pregnancy abortion bill entitled the texas heartbeat bill. the bill (hb 1500) was joint authored by representatives phil king, dan flynn, tan parker, and rick miller. as of february 26, 2019, hb 1500 had 57 sponsors or cosponsors of the 150 members of the texas house of representatives. former state senator wendy davis said hb 1500 is "the most dangerous i've ever seen." in 2019, texas had some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. in mid-may 2019, because of judicial rulings, abortion was effectively banned after week 22. on june 7, 2019, texas governor greg abbott signed abortion legislation that was set to go into effect on september 1. this legislation said that local governments could not do business with any organization that provided abortion services, including through the offering of tax breaks or by leasing municipal-owned buildings to such organizations. the legislation also prevents local governments from "advocacy or lobbying on behalf of the interests of an abortion provider or affiliate." an exception was provided for non-abortion clinics that perform fewer than 50 abortions a year, such as doctor offices, hospitals or ambulatory services. 2020s in may 2021, texas lawmakers passed the texas heartbeat act, banning abortions as soon as fetal cardiac activity can be detected, typically as early as six weeks into pregnancy and often before women know they are pregnant. in order to avoid traditional constitutional challenges based on roe v. wade, the law provides that any person, with or without any vested interest, may sue anyone that performs or induces abortion in violation of the statute, as well as anyone who "aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise." it was signed into law by governor greg abbott on may 15, 2021. the heartbeat act authorizes lawsuits not only against abortion providers, but also against abortion funders, employers, and insurance companies that defray the costs of abortion, along with anyone else who "aids or abets" an unlawful abortion by providing referrals, transportation, or any type of logistical support. anyone who is successfully sued for violating the act can be found liable for a minimum of $10,000 for each abortion performed (or assisted) in violation of the act, plus costs and attorneys' fees. at the same time, the act specifically prohibits state officials from enforcing the act, leaving enforcement entirely in the hands of private litigants who will sue those who violate the statute. the law was written this way to prevent abortion providers from challenging the constitutionality of the statute before it takes effect in the ordinary manner, which involves injunction suits against state officials charged with enforcement in federal court. instead, abortion providers must wait until someone sues them for violating the statute, and then assert their constitutional claims defensively. the act was challenged in courts, but the u.s. supreme court declined to enjoin it and no full formal hearing took place before it took effect on september 1, 2021. whole woman's health and other abortion providers sought an emergency injunction from the u.s. supreme court to stop the law from coming into effect, but the court denied the application. although the order itself was unsigned, chief justice john roberts wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by justices stephen breyer and elena kagan, indicating that he would "preclude enforcement of s. b. 8 by the respondents to afford the district court and the court of appeals the opportunity to consider the propriety of judicial action and preliminary relief pending consideration of the plaintiffs' claims." justice sonia sotomayor also wrote a stinging dissent of her own. on october 6, 2021, u.s. district judge robert l. pitman enjoined texas courts from participating in the enforcement of the law through private civil litigation on the theory that judges are agents of the state. however, on october 8, 2021, the u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit put the law in effect again. on december 2, 2021, a new law against medication abortions took effect. the law requires doctors to examine the patient in person before prescribing the pills and makes it a felony for doctors to send the pills to the patient by a delivery service. it also prohibits doctors from prescribing the abortion pill after seven weeks of pregnancy (whereas the u.s. food and drug administration allows it up to 10 weeks). the bill had been previously signed by governor greg abbott. judicial history in 1971, norma mccorvey, then an unmarried pregnant woman who would later be known as jane roe, decided to challenge the texas law that said it was a crime for doctors to perform elective abortions and that women could only have abortions if their lives were at stake. the us supreme court's decision in 1973's roe v. wade ruling meant the state could no longer regulate abortion in the first trimester. the supreme court overturned roe v. wade in dobbs v. jackson women's health organization, no. 19-1392, 597 u.s. ___ (2022) in 2022.) on february 19, 1975, the texas supreme court's ruling in the case jacobs v. theimer made texas the first state to declare a woman could sue her doctor for wrongful birth. that case involved dortha jean jacobs (later dortha biggs), who caught rubella while pregnant and gave birth to lesli, who was severely disabled. dortha and her husband sued her doctor, saying he did not diagnose the rubella or warn them how it would affect the pregnancy. low-income women of texas v. raiford was filed in the texas district court on march 10, 1993, to challenge the texas state constitutionality of denying state funding for abortions when a physician deems the abortion medically necessary. in 2003, norma mccorvey filed suit in the u.s. district court in dallas with the goal of overturning the roe v. wade decision in which she was a participant. in september 2004, a federal appeals court ruled on a targeted regulation of abortion providers (trap) law put into place in texas law, which ultimately resulted in many abortion clinics in the state being forced to shut down. on august 29, 2014, us district judge lee yeakel struck down as unconstitutional two provisions of texas' omnibus anti-abortion bill, house bill 2 that was to come into effect on september 1. the regulation would have closed about a dozen abortion clinics, leaving only eight places in texas to get a legal abortion, all located in major cities. judge yeakel ruled that the state's regulation was unconstitutional and would have placed an undue burden on women, particularly on poor and rural women living in west texas and the rio grande valley. in the case of whole woman's health v. hellerstedt, 579 u.s. ___ (2016), the us supreme court in a 5-3 decision on june 27, 2016, swept away forms of state restrictions on the way abortion clinics can function. in 2013 the texas legislature enacted restrictions on the delivery of abortion services, creating an undue burden for women seeking an abortion by requiring abortion doctors to have difficult-to-obtain "admitting privileges" at a local hospital and by requiring clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities. the court struck down these two provisions "facially" from the law at issue—that is, the very words of the provisions were invalid, no matter how they might be applied in any practical situation. according to the supreme court, the task of judging whether a law puts an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to abortion belongs with the courts, and not the legislatures. in august 2018, dilation & evacuation (d & e) legislation passed by texas and alabama was working its way through the federal courts' appeal process. funding history as a result of administrative code tit. 25, § 29,1121 from january 1997, women in texas cannot use any state funds for abortion services unless their life is in danger or the pregnancy is a result of rape. the us 1998 department of labor appropriations act pub. l. no 105.78, title v, §§ 509, 510 was a federal law that barred states who participated in medicaid from refusing to use federal funds to pay abortions in cases of pregnancy as a result of rape or incest, or when continuing the pregnancy would harm a woman's health. in 2005 the 79th legislature enacted several laws related to abortion. one put funding restrictions on family planning clinics as part of legislative efforts to force planned parenthood clinics in the state to close. texas created a state-funded program alternatives to abortion program. funds for the program came from existing programs designed to support family planning. additional funding was allocated for the alternatives to abortion program in 2007. the state legislature continued in its effort to deny funding to planned parenthood in 2009. these efforts failed. another attempt to pass mandatory ultrasounds before women could get abortions also failed. efforts by lawmakers to try to get planned parenthood out of the state continued in 2010. these efforts were successful in defining all planned parenthood clinics as abortion clinics, even if a clinic did not perform abortions and only offered family planning services. this was intended to deny planned parenthood funding to clinics that didn't provide abortion services. in 2010, the state had three publicly-funded abortion clinics, none of which were state-funded. in 2011, texas was one of six states where the legislature introduced a bill that would have banned abortion in almost all cases. it did not pass. in 2011, the state legislature voted to defund family planning funding, including for the women's health program; these programs were replaced by state-funded abortion alternative programs that only provided limited contraceptive supplies. that year, the state also successfully passed a law requiring mandatory ultrasound screenings before women could get abortions. in practice, this led to planned parenthood being unable to receive any title x funding. the alternatives to abortion-supported clinics, many of which have religious affiliations, have not always fared well despite receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from the state of texas. heidi clinic, run by the heidi group, is one such clinic. it opened in april 2018, and staff members engaged in daily prayers while materials around the facility encouraged people to read the bible and to pray more. it was closed in september 2018 as the clinic served only 5% of the total number of patients they had predicted they would serve. the heidi clinic had promised the state they could serve 69,000 people, including men and undocumented immigrants, with their reproductive health services. this was more than the local planned parenthood clinic served. the state had several years of documentation showing that the heidi group violated contracts and misused taxpayer dollars during a period when the state was funding them and similar organizations. despite these problems, the state of texas renewed the contract with the heidi group for two additional years. the state was only able to recover a portion of the funding it had allocated to the group for services it failed to provide. in september 2019, the city of austin amended its 2020 budget to include $150,000 in funds to support logistical and support services for abortion access. these services could include child care, case management, and transportation needs. the amendment passed with a 10-1 majority supporting the measure, including mayor pro tem delia garza who introduced the measure. this was the first measure passed in any u.s. city offering practical support for abortion. a legal challenge to the local policy made its way to the texas supreme court. clinic history number of abortion clinics in texas by year.