Lessons from a Bipartisan Abortion Bill

When people think of polarizing issues, abortion likely comes to mind. So isn’t the phrase “bipartisan abortion bill” a self-contradiction? Not necessarily. In 2025, such a thing actually happened in Texas.

Democrats and Republicans passed the Texas Life of the Mother Act unanimously in the Texas Senate and nearly unanimously in the Texas House of Representatives. Texas governor Greg Abbott signed the bill on June 20, 2025.

The bill was about a rare point of public agreement on abortion law: Abortion should be legal when it is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. Large majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents support this view:

Yet despite the Life of the Mother Act’s bipartisan support in the Texas legislature, its detractors included some abortion-rights organizations and a number of Republican anti-abortion advocates.

The story has multiple lessons. It’s about how agreement can happen amid polarization and can lead to policy changes. It’s also about how even a modest point of agreement can become controversial when it exists within a broader disagreement.

The problem

Of states with laws that restrict abortion, all have a life-of-the-mother exception. However, they are all different in their wording and specifics. In some cases, they are problematically vague.

Before the Life of the Mother Act, Texas’ abortion laws included a relatively vague life-of-the-mother exception. They also included clear and large penalties for doctors who perform abortions: extended prison time, a fine “not less than $100,000 for each violation,” and loss of the doctor’s medical license.

In testimony for a court case involving Texas’ abortion laws, a Houston obstetrician–gynecologist said the laws “amplified the fear and reluctance to offer a patient an abortion, even if I thought it might pass the exceptions within the law.”

Several cases occurred in Texas where reluctance to treat emergencies resulted in tragedy. For example, Nevaeh Crain was suffering complications in her pregnancy. She sought care at three different emergency rooms over a period of 20 hours. At one point, despite showing signs of sepsis—a life-threatening infection that medical experts said was likely in her uterus—she was sent home because doctors detected a fetal heartbeat. She later died from the infection that could have been treated with prompt, aggressive care.

The Life of the Mother Act

In response to cases like Crain’s, Republican and Democratic co-authors in both the Texas Senate and House created the Life of the Mother Act. It made several clarifications to Texas’ exceptions, such as:

• The patient does not need to be at imminent risk of death to be treated.

• Conditions involving “serious risk of substantial impairment” to major bodily functions are included, as well as life-threatening conditions.

• Ectopic pregnancies and complications from miscarriages are specifically included.

The bill did not change the fact that Texas’ overall abortion law is among the most restrictive in the United States. The bill’s only goal was to clarify what the life-of-the-mother exception means, to avoid situations where pregnant women fail to get emergency care in a timely manner.

As one of the co-authors, Senate Democrat Carol Alvarado put it, “I believe this bill will save lives, which is why I support it, not only supporting it but co-sponsor with you [Republican Senator Bryan Hughes].”

Supporters and opponents

In addition to gaining nearly unanimous support in the Texas legislature, the Life of the Mother Act received support from Texas’ two largest healthcare organizations and most anti-abortion advocacy groups.

A small number of anti-abortion Republicans voted against the Act in the Texas House, believing it opened loopholes for abortion-minded doctors to exploit. Meanwhile, some abortion-rights groups opposed the bill, arguing that exceptions don’t work in practice and that the only answer is to eliminate Texas’ abortion ban altogether.

In essence, opponents of the Act dismissed its central premise: that clarifying Texas’ abortion laws would cause fewer tragedies from doctors’ fear to act. Opponents made this argument despite the state’s largest healthcare organizations—representing the doctors in question—saying the Act would indeed help doctors and patients.

Lessons

So what can be learned from the Life of the Mother Act?

1. Agreement is possible within even the most polarizing issues. Despite deep divisions on abortion, large majorities across party lines support life-of-the-mother exceptions. The agreement was on a secondary issue rather than the broader debate, but such issues can still have life-or-death consequences.

2. Public opinion can overcome legislative dysfunction. The Act succeeded because it had strong public support and addressed a narrow, specific problem without re-litigating broader disagreements about abortion. This allowed Democrats and Republicans to unite on an incremental fix despite the legislature’s overall polarization.

3. Advocacy organizations may resist common ground. Some abortion-rights groups and some anti-abortion advocates rejected the Act, despite its narrow scope. From both sides, the dissenters could not see beyond an all-or-nothing view of the larger abortion conflict.

The Texas experience demonstrates that Americans can agree, and act on that agreement, even within an issue as polarizing as abortion. The key was identifying and acting on the common ground, while leaving other disagreements aside. Although some advocates on both sides stuck to all-or-nothing perspectives, the legislature passed a law that large majorities supported and that will save lives.