Texas Anti-Abortion Groups Split Over Criminalization Tactics in Post-Roe Era
Internal conflicts erupt over legislative priorities as factions diverge on whether to punish patients, pursue pill bans, or focus on support-based strategies.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, Texas has become a proving ground not just for anti-abortion legislation, but for strategic conflict among anti-abortion groups themselves. According to a report in the Houston Chronicle, several leading Texas-based anti-abortion organizations are clashing over how aggressively the state should criminalize abortion-related behavior—and who should be punished.
At the heart of the divide are three groups: Texas Right to Life, Abolish Abortion Texas, and Texas Alliance for Life. While united in opposition to abortion access, these organizations disagree over tactics, language, and legislative goals during the state’s special legislative session this summer.
According to the Houston Chronicle, Texas Right to Life has thrown its weight behind bills aimed at restricting access to abortion pills, particularly those mailed from out-of-state providers. The organization also supports enforcement mechanisms that would penalize people who help others obtain abortions across state lines.
Abolish Abortion Texas, a more hardline group, supports House Bill 163—a so-called “equal protection” measure that would legally define abortion as homicide, potentially subjecting patients to criminal prosecution. The group believes current Texas law does not go far enough because it exempts pregnant people from prosecution.
Texas Alliance for Life has taken a sharply different stance, arguing against criminalizing patients and calling instead for a strategy rooted in support, education, and health resources. The group supports exceptions in rare cases, including threats to the pregnant person's life.
“There really is a big difference among groups,” Texas Alliance for Life Executive Director Joe Pojman told the Houston Chronicle, noting that the post-Roe landscape has not unified the movement as some anticipated.
These fissures are emerging as the Texas legislature considers new abortion-related bills during its summer special session—several of which would extend liability to people who facilitate abortions in any way, including those who provide information online or through private conversations. According to The 19th News, some of these bills aim to criminalize the act of helping minors obtain out-of-state abortions or even hosting websites that share information about abortion services.
Legal scholars have raised concerns that such proposals may infringe on First Amendment rights and criminalize constitutionally protected speech. According to The Guardian, free speech advocates warn that these efforts could set dangerous precedents by punishing people for sharing information or expressing support for legal abortion access in other states.
Beyond Texas, similar debates are playing out in other states. In Ohio, for example, the Prenatal Equal Protection Act (House Bill 370) has become a flashpoint. According to Cleveland.com, the bill would classify all abortions as homicide, granting embryos and fetuses full legal personhood from conception. It includes narrow exceptions—primarily for the life of the pregnant person—but critics say it could be interpreted to ban certain forms of birth control, criminalize miscarriage investigations, and shut down in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics.
Supporters, including the group End Abortion Ohio, frame it as a logical extension of the anti-abortion movement’s moral position. However, according to The Columbus Dispatch, even some anti-abortion organizations such as Ohio Right to Life oppose the bill, warning that prosecuting pregnant people could alienate voters and provoke backlash that undermines their long-term goals. The resulting divisions mirror the rifts now emerging in Texas.
What’s clear is that the anti-abortion movement, despite its success in helping overturn Roe, is far from ideologically united. As states push ever more restrictive laws, these internal debates may shape not only the scope of abortion bans—but their political viability.