Relating to family support services provided under a Health and Human Services Commission program.
SB 1388 revises Texas law governing the Health and Human Services Commission’s Thriving Texas Families Program, which is the state’s continuation of the former alternatives-to-abortion program. The bill keeps the program focused on outreach, care coordination, and support for pregnant women and families, while expanding and clarifying the list of allowable services to include parenting, adoption, life skills, employment readiness, referrals to public benefits, infant supplies, and housing-related assistance. It also directs the commission to simplify participation for smaller providers with less than $2 million in annual revenue and to offer technical assistance materials.
The bill also tightens eligibility and affiliation rules for providers and contractors. It defines terms such as “abortion services provider,” “affiliate,” “governmental entity,” “network contractor,” and “program,” and requires providers to remain legally separate from abortion-related entities, avoid shared staff or governing bodies, and certify annually that they support the program’s life-affirming mission. The measure bars program funds from being used for abortion-related services and excludes certain governmental, hospital, and primarily medical or behavioral health organizations from funding, with limited grandfathering for some preexisting contractors.
SB 1388 amends Chapter 54 of the Health and Safety Code and changes the rules for how HHSC may structure, fund, and oversee the Thriving Texas Families Program. It expands the statutory service menu, adds housing assistance language, imposes new certification and separation requirements on contractors and providers, and creates a simplified grant process for small service providers. The bill takes effect September 1, 2025, and requires HHSC’s executive commissioner to adopt implementing rules as soon as practicable.
The bill appears to have received majority support but also meaningful opposition, especially in the House. It passed the Senate 25-6 and later the House 95-48, with one House amendment process showing a failed amendment and a record vote before final passage. The vote pattern suggests the measure was broadly supported by lawmakers aligned with the program’s anti-abortion, family-support framing, while a substantial minority opposed the restrictions and program design.
The main points of contention are the bill’s abortion-related restrictions and provider eligibility limits. Supporters likely view the measure as strengthening a state family-support network and ensuring program funds are kept separate from abortion providers and affiliates. Opponents appear to have focused on the exclusion of hospitals, governmental entities, and primarily medical or behavioral health providers, as well as the broad definitions and affiliation rules that could disqualify organizations with indirect ties to abortion-related entities. The requirement that providers certify a life-affirming mission and avoid any abortion advocacy is another likely source of disagreement.