Dr. Damla Karsan lives in fear for her patients—and for all pregnant Texans. 

The Houston OB-GYN has spent the last four years painfully navigating the state’s draconian abortion bans, oftentimes for patients who face severe complications. With vaguely defined exceptions for medical emergencies, the law has forced doctors to either delay or deny life-saving care out of worry they could face lawsuits or prison time for performing pregnancy termination. 

Karsan knows the risks well: When she promised to perform abortion care in 2023 for Kate Cox, a Dallas mother who saw her health steadily deteriorate after doctors failed to terminate her fatal pregnancy, she was met with direct threats of prosecution from Attorney General Ken Paxton. Cox eventually fled the state. Paxton’s attacks on reproductive healthcare workers have only escalated since then, most recently with the arrest of a Houston-area midwife for allegedly giving abortion pills to a patient—the first criminal charges under the state’s ban that took effect after the 2022 fall of Roe.

Karsan has had other patients who were hemorrhaging during a miscarriage—just a few steps away from death—and still faced delayed care at the ER. Some of her patients are too scared to even get pregnant, while others have fled Texas in order to start their families safely. Her experiences mirror the flood of traumatic stories from other Texans and providers. 

“These laws are torturing women, there’s no other way to put it,” Karsan told the Texas Observer in between deliveries from her practice just south of the Houston Medical Center. “It is absolutely horrible having to try to help patients get care when the state has barred us from using our best medical judgement.” 

May 2022 abortion rights protest at Texas Capitol in Austin (Gus Bova/Texas Observer)

A 2021 near-total abortion ban, known as Senate Bill 8, encourages private civil suits against anyone who “aids or abets” care, and the 2022 post-Roe criminal ban threatens doctors who perform abortion with $100,000 in fines, loss of their medical license, and up to 99 years in prison. The criminal law holds an exception for patients who are at “risk of death” or “substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” For years, doctors and advocates have said the carve-out is ambiguous and unworkable in reality, resulting in confusion and trepidation when treating high-risk patients. 

Following a long—and largely unsuccessful—road to clarify the laws, including a 2023 lawsuit filed by 20 women denied abortion care despite pregnancy complications and a flurry of proposals from Democrats last legislative session, a new bill filed by Senate Republican Bryan Hughes now seeks to add clarity. 

Introduced just before the Legislature’s bill filing deadline, Senate Bill 31—now scheduled for a committee hearing Thursday—would strike the term “life-threatening condition” from the criminal law, as the language has caused confusion among doctors. It includes guidance from a previous Texas Supreme Court ruling that found the law does not require a medical emergency to necessarily be imminent or irreversible before a doctor can take action. It would also clarify that physicians are not required to “delay or withhold” life-saving medical care in order to preserve the life of the fetus, and it would ostensibly offer stronger protections for doctors when treating ectopic pregnancy and premature water breaks. 

Dubbed the “Life of the Mother Act,” the bill also clarifies that a doctor or lawyer can discuss a medically necessary abortion with a patient without the risk of “aiding and abetting” charges. Representative Charlie Geren, a Fort Worth Republican, has filed an identical companion bill in the House.

The legislative proposals mark the most significant effort by Republicans to allay concerns from patients and providers about Texas abortion law thus far. 

Hughes’ office did not return calls for comment; however, he recently told local newspapers in Texas that the law is meant to “remove any excuse” for doctors not to treat pregnant patients whose lives are in jeopardy. “I’ve said for some time that the law is clear, but if we can make it clearer, if we can remove any doubt and hesitation we want to do that,” Hughes told the Houston Chronicle. At a Capitol press conference this month, Geren said he considers the legislation “the most important bill” he’s carried in his more than two decades at the Legislature. “Too many women have suffered. Too many have died. If one has died, it’s too many,” said Geren. “I have friends whose wives can no longer conceive because of the problems they went through with their first pregnancy and the delay their doctors faced in addressing the problems.”

In January, the staunchly anti-abortion Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick called on the Legislature to clarify language in the law so that doctors are “not in fear of being penalized if they think the life of the mother is at risk,” becoming the first statewide official to do so this session. And he included the bill on his list of top 40 legislative priorities. Meanwhile, Republican Governor Greg Abbott—who holds veto power over bills—has said the law doesn’t need to be changed but that he may be accepting of the GOP-backed legislation. Geren has pleaded with Abbott to “Veto everything else, but [leave this bill] alone.”

It remains to be seen if either proposal will win the approval of enough fellow Republicans to pass, or if the GOP will get sidetracked by a slew of bills aimed at further restricting the flow of abortion pills—the most aggressive of which is backed by Hughes himself. The sweeping 43-page Senate Bill 2880 would allow Texans to file civil suit against groups that mail abortion-inducing drugs into Texas; make it a felony to pay for a person’s abortion care, including travel costs; and empower the “biological father of the unborn child” to file “wrongful death” lawsuits against abortion patients, among other extreme provisions. 

Democrats like Representative Donna Howard, an Austin Democrat, have spent years championing wider exceptions to the state’s abortion laws, including filing a broader bill to do so this session as well as a measure to allow abortion care for survivors of sexual assault. Howard is supportive of Hughes and Geren’s bill and will urge her Democratic colleagues to support it, saying it “would save the lives of Texas moms.” She considers the new Republican-backed measure a reflection of the dissatisfaction among GOP constituents.

“Many of the communities my Republican colleagues represent aren’t happy. They feel like the law went too far,” she told the Observer. “They are pressuring for a change so they can safely grow their families. And I think [the new GOP] bill is a direct response to that. … To let the law stand as-is would be the total opposite of what Republicans supposedly say they want: Women will continue to lose their pregnancies, lose their babies, and even lose their lives.”

After a string of horrifying near-death experiences under the laws, an investigation last fall from ProPublica found that three pregnant women in Texas—Josseli Barnica, 28, Nevaeh Crain, 18, and Porsha Ngumezi, 35—died after doctors waited to treat their miscarriages. Medical experts interviewed concluded that their deaths were preventable. The news spurred Karsan and 110 other OB-GYNs to sign on to a letter in November urging lawmakers to reform Texas abortion law, writing: “Anti-abortion groups and others are saying the blame does not fall on Texas law. That is simply not true. As OB-GYNs in Texas we know firsthand how much these laws restrict our ability to provide our patients with quality, evidence-based care. Texas needs a change in laws.”

Karsan points out that the groundswell of opposition is significant for Texas doctors, who have been hesitant to express their frustration publicly out of fear of retaliation. Self-employed in private practice and unbound by the systems that rely on state coffers, Karsan said she is more able to speak her mind and has even helped challenge the laws in court. 

“A lot of my colleagues have been muzzled by the healthcare institutions they are employed by. They do not want to upset the powers that be because these institutions get some of their funding from the state.”

Until now, efforts to help clarify the law have been minimal. After years of staying noticeably silent on the issue, The Texas Medical Board—prompted by a petition from healthcare lobbyists—adopted guidance last June on how doctors should interpret the abortion bans. However, those like Karsan say the guidelines didn’t help give physicians like her any “meaningful leeway.” Additionally, the board failed to provide a comprehensive list of cases in which abortion care would be legal, and TMB Board Chair Dr. Sherif Zaafran himself acknowledged the guidance is limited and could not prevent criminal prosecution. (All TMB members are appointed by Governor Abbott, and many have donated generously to his campaign.)

While the 2023 legislative session saw a successful bipartisan effort to cover two specific conditions under the law, ectopic pregnancies and premature water breaks, the measure still left many other potentially life-threatening conditions in gray area. 

Until Patrick’s recent call, Texas Republicans have largely reiterated—in the media as well as in the courtroom—that the law is clear as-is and the onus rests with individual physicians. In fact, in a November op-ed for the Houston Chronicle, Hughes himself not only wrote that the law is “plenty clear” but ascribed blame for doctors’ fear to articles like the ones “published in ProPublica,” writing that, “Pro-abortion groups and their allies in the left-wing media have been relentless in their attempts to scare doctors.”

Elisabeth Smith, director of state policy at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Texas is “sadly not alone” in its slow efforts to widen medical exceptions, as the 11 other states that enforce criminal abortion bans have largely not done so. (Recently, lawmakers in Kentucky added exceptions to their state’s near-total abortion ban; however, pro-abortion groups have criticized the additions as insignificant.)

“Up until now, the state of Texas—like most other banned states—has made it very clear they are not interested in providing clarity for providers and patients,” said Smith. “And Texas doctors face some of the most draconian penalties in the country. They feel like hospital lawyers are sitting on their shoulders, and [are] afraid of making the wrong choice.”

Reproductive health advocates like Smith note that the only real solution to preventing deaths and physical trauma as a result of abortion bans is to strike the law altogether. “More clarity is a good thing,” she said. “But the problem with any abortion ban is that they are trying to squeeze medical decision-making into narrow exceptions that cannot possibly cover every case. Exceptions give a veneer or gloss to make bans appear more [palatable] for people who have never really worked in the medical field. But in practice, they rarely work.”

Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi, a Dallas-area OB-GYN and complex family planning specialist, echoed the skepticism. Glaringly, Hughes himself was the author of the state’s 2021 lawsuit-based ban. His new bill proposes “continuing education” for doctors to better understand how to interpret the law, which Moayedi considers a subtle reaffirmation of the state’s motive to push responsibility on anyone but lawmakers. (“Who is going to run the seminar? It could be an anti-abortion activist perpetuating state propaganda; we don’t know yet,” she points out.) She also believes much of the “clarifying” language remains vague or confusing. Moreover, the new bill fails to add exceptions for rape, incest, or fatal fetal diagnoses, forcing vulnerable pregnant people into more trauma.

“It feels like they are playing a semantics game that is ultimately not going to help people,” Moayedi said. “The GOP is looking for a deflection from the crisis they’ve caused. I urge Democrats not to settle for crumbs this session—we really deserve better, our state deserves better.”

Some reproductive rights advocates worry that the bill could end up actually causing more damage than good. In addition to amending the current criminal ban, the bill also amends a 1925 pre-Roe-era ban still on the books, which prohibits abortion and targets anyone who “furnishes the means” to do so with a potential prison sentence of up to five years. (Paxton sought to enforce the ban to target abortion funds after the fall of Roe, but a federal court blocked those efforts in 2023.) They caution that by tacitly implying the law is still relevant, the bill could be used as a backdoor attempt to revive the 100-year-old ban to again try to prosecute abortion funds or others down the road.

“By trying to sneak in a revival of this pre-Roe ban, lawmakers could criminalize practical support organizations like us,” said Kamyon Conner, executive director of the Texas Equal Access Fund, which provides financial support to Texans traveling out-of-state for care. “It would be harmful to one of the last pathways for Texans to access abortion care outside the state. We hope Democrats pressure their colleagues to remove this part.”

Studies show the already-strained OB-GYN workforce in Texas has suffered under the laws. Of nearly 500 Texas OB-GYNs surveyed, 60 percent said they fear legal repercussions for practicing evidence-based medicine, according to research from Manatt Health. And nearly 80 percent feel that they cannot provide the best treatment for their patients under the bans. One in five doctors has considered leaving Texas, and 13 percent are planning to retire early due to the restrictions. Already tenuous abortion training for medical students is also vanishing. A women’s healthcare provider for more than two decades, Karsan stressed the intense fear is felt not just among frontline physicians but everyone in the chain of medical care. 

“All medical staff are so scared and so confused. They are reluctant to get involved in a patient’s care … because they don’t even want their name on the chart,” said Karsan, which compromises the team effort required for all complex medical care.

“Something needs to change soon, or we are going to keep living in fear and we are, without a doubt, going to see more women die.”

The post Republican Abortion Laws Are ‘Torturing Women.’ Can the GOP Fix Its Own Crisis? appeared first on The Texas Observer.

By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Diplomatic Writer

KINGSTON, Jamaica (AP) — Weaning Caribbean countries from their dependence on Venezuelan oil and combating illegal immigration will top U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s tour of three Caribbean nations this week as the Trump administration increasingly focuses its attention on the Western Hemisphere.

The State Department said Rubio, who arrived in Jamaica on Wednesday, will push for the region to diversify its energy supplies. Rubio also will visit Guyana and Suriname, his visit coming just days after U.S. President Donald Trump announced new sanctions on Venezuelan oil exports and threatened tariffs on all goods imported into the United States by other countries that buy oil from Venezuela.

Related Articles

‘I didn’t think it would be this bad’: Veterans worry VA cuts will hurt their care

In their own words: Trump officials shrugging off Signal leak once decried Clinton’s server

US could run short of money to pay its bills by August without a debt limit deal, CBO says

The Atlantic releases the entire Signal chat showing Hegseth’s detailed attack plans against Houthis

Change in itinerary for US Vice President JD Vance brings cautious relief for Greenland and Denmark

Another main issue for Rubio will be the situation in Haiti, where a multinational peacekeeping force has been in place for months struggling to prevent gangs from taking over the country. Rubio spoke Tuesday with the president of Kenya, which is leading that force, although the State Department account of the call made no reference to Haiti.

“The challenge, obviously, is Haiti,” said Mauricio Claver-Caron, Trump’s special envoy for the Western Hemisphere. “And, obviously, we all know and we share the deep commitment to tackling this challenge in Haiti.”

But in a conference call with reporters Tuesday, he did not offer details on what the Republican former Florida senator would suggest on Haiti policy. Rubio has extended waivers on an overall U.S. foreign aid freeze to continue to fund the security force in Haiti, but it remains unclear how long they will last.

“This trip is going to add in the urgency of the moment and in the urgency of the situation to the development and implementation of a very targeted strategy in regards to Haiti to try to ensure that these gangs do not take over, obviously, Port-au-Prince but then expand beyond that,” Claver-Caron said without elaborating.

Energy, he said, will be the top topic of conversation while Rubio is in the Caribbean.

“We are in a historic moment in the Caribbean for energy security, which has been the Achilles’ heel of the Caribbean for so long and its economic development with disproportionately high electricity and energy prices,” Claver-Caron said.

He said Rubio’s visit comes at a time of a “historic opportunity for energy security in the Caribbean, which will improve people’s lives, will improve also the opportunities and the relationship with the United States and what that means, and obviously, will strengthen our neighbors, which we seek.”

On Monday, Trump announced he was tightening U.S. sanctions on Venezuelan oil exports and would slap a 25% tariff on all goods sent to the U.S. by countries that import Venezuelan oil on April 2. But just hours later, the Treasury Department said it would extend a sanctions waiver for the U.S. company Chevron to continue to send Venezuelan oil to the United States until the end of May.

“The fact that now their own countries — Guyana, Suriname — are able to have and really surpass Venezuela in its oil production and be able to work with its neighbors there in the region is a huge opportunity for the Caribbean,” Claver-Caron said.

He also suggested the U.S. was prepared to field questions from regional leaders about U.S. sanctions on Cuba that target programs that send doctors and nurses to the region and elsewhere. American officials have said the programs resemble organized human trafficking because the medical professionals are not paid directly.

Latin American leaders have denounced the U.S. sanctions, saying they deprive their people of much needed medical assistance, but Claver-Caron dismissed those complaints and said if the leaders Rubio meets with focus on that, it will be a waste of time.

“If they choose to overshadow this trip with the issue of Cuban doctors, it’ll be a lost opportunity, because again, the huge opportunity here is energy security, economic development that has plagued this region, and the biggest challenge that we have is Haiti,” he said.

“In this year’s budget, Gov. Kathy Hochul has proposed an expansion of mental health forced hospitalization, which would direct law enforcement to approach people who they deem mentally ill—leaving the discretion entirely in policing even in the absence of present threat.”

Gov. Kathy Hochul delivering the 2025 State of the State Address in Albany. (Mike Groll/Office of Governor Kathy Hochul)

We all deserve safety and wellness, and it’s clear to New Yorkers that our government is too often failing to provide this. As elected officials come to realize that New Yorkers will not accept the status quo where thousands of people living with mental illness suffer in our communities without adequate housing or treatment, we’ve seen them rush to share their “plans” to respond.

We need to do something different, but we need to invest in the solutions that actually work. Those solutions must be rooted in treating public health challenges with public health responses, not the same reflexive reliance on law enforcement that has already failed us.

In this year’s budget, Gov. Kathy Hochul has proposed an expansion of mental health forced hospitalization, which would direct law enforcement to approach people who they deem mentally ill—leaving the discretion entirely in policing even in the absence of present threat. This is the wrong approach on many levels, and the state legislature must reject it.

The current standard for involuntary transport to a hospital—which directs police to intervene when they deem a person poses a danger to themselves or others—already creates a problem of relying on law enforcement to determine who fits this standard, and is too often abused to justify harassment of people experiencing homelessness and mental health challenges.

This proposal would create an even more disastrous outcome for people experiencing an emotional crisis by permitting law enforcement personnel to make subjective determinations about who is a threat, and forcibly remove them to a hospital. I commend the governor in understanding that our mental health system has been deprioritized and defunded, but this is not the solution. We need real investments in true public health responses.

As a person who has experienced forced hospitalization, nothing in the plan will lead to de-escalation, and will only bring about a sense of fear and anxiety among people who have, in many cases, already had traumatizing interactions with law enforcement.

In 2014 when I was living in the New York City shelter system, I was victimized by both NYPD and Department of Homeless Services Police, reported as an “Emotionally Disturbed Person,” held against my will unlawfully in numerous city and privately owned hospitals, and forcefully medicated without examination or evaluation.

This impacted my employment and my mental health, contributing to numerous PTSD episodes that leave me in utter fear and isolated. Even after exposing the treatment in a lawsuit, I was again subjected to abuse by the NYPD over a pretext traffic stop (no consent to search vehicle) in August 2023, and subjected to forced medication. If the governor’s plan is permitted, it will lead to confrontation between law enforcement and people in crisis, which NYPD tends to escalate. We will see more New Yorkers subjected to the abuses that I was by the NYPD, DHS and Health & Hospital Corporation. 

Following Mayor Eric Adams’ previous push to expand forced hospitalization, more people are already being involuntarily transported to hospitals by police. The city’s most recent data shows that officers involuntarily transported people to hospitals 7,060 times in 2024. That’s almost 20 people per day. It’s no mystery why all of that police intervention has not produced the safety or wellness the Mayor promised us. Forced hospitalization, initiated by police officers, is not treatment, but rather criminalizing people for a public health concern. 

Beyond being ineffective, the governor’s proposal could bring deadly results. It will not work to improve safety or public health—but we know what will. We need investments in the resources that keep people well in their communities, like supportive and affordable housing, community based mental health treatment teams, crisis respite centers, mental health clubhouses, and more.

With these resources in place, far fewer people will reach the point of crisis. But when they do, we need to have a fully-funded system to respond with mental health professionals, including peers, rather than police. When people with mental health needs do come into contact with law enforcement, we need off-ramps throughout the system—from pre-arraignment diversion to mental health courts and alternatives to incarceration—to connect people with the treatment they need, rather than languishing on Rikers. Finally, for people coming home from incarceration who have mental health needs, we need strong services and connections in place to help them quickly secure housing, treatment and any other support they need to rejoin their communities.

We clearly need to do something differently around mental health, and this is the time for our governor and state lawmakers to make sure that we’re investing in what works.

Victor M. Herrera is a member of Freedom Agenda, and a resident of Queens.

The post Opinion: Governor’s Forced Hospitalization Plan Will Criminalize Already At-Risk Communities appeared first on City Limits.

By MARIA SHERMAN, Associated Press

Thirty years ago, music legend Selena Quintanilla-Pérez was killed by her fan club’s president, Yolanda Saldívar. For the last three decades, Saldívar has served her life sentence in Texas.

Now 64, Saldívar has a petition for parole under review, according to Texas Department of Criminal Justice online records. On Sunday, she is up for parole for the very first time.

According to a spokeswoman for the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, her case will be voted on or around then, but there’s no exact date for the decision to be released.

Here’s everything you need to know about Selena, Saldívar and the parole process in Texas:

Who was Selena Quintanilla-Pérez?

Born in 1971, Quintanilla-Pérez demonstrated an incredible vocal gift in childhood, fronting Selena y Los Dinos with her siblings A.B. and Suzette Quintanilla.

Her superstardom arrived in the early 1990s, with her unique blend of Tejano, pop, cumbia and other musical styles manifesting in huge hits like “Bidi Bidi Bom Bom,” “Como la Flor,” “Amor Prohibido,” “No Me Queda Mas” and “Tu Solo Tu.”

FILE – A star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for the late singer Selena Quintanilla is pictured following a ceremony on Friday, Nov. 3, 2017, in Los Angeles. (Photo by Chris Pizzello/Invision/AP, File)

Known the world over as The Queen of Tejano, or even more simply just as Selena, she broke barriers for women in Latin music. She opened the floodgates for a new generation of contemporary artists of Latin descent who would go on to enjoy huge popularity with mainstream American audiences. She often sang in Spanish and spoke in English, reflecting a cross-cultural identity that resonated with listeners.

She won her first Grammy in 1994 for best Mexican/Mexican-American album for “Live,” becoming the first female Tejano artist to win the category. She was just 23 when she was killed the following year. But her legacy endures for Mexican Americans, Mexicans, Texans, Latinos and beyond.

Her posthumous English-language crossover album released a few months after her death, “Dreaming of You,” topped the Billboard 200, featuring hits like “I Could Fall in Love” and “Dreaming of You.” In 1997, a biographical film about her life, “Selena,” would quickly become a classic, further launching the career of lead Jennifer Lopez.

In 2017, she received a posthumous star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. At the time, according to a Hollywood Chamber of Commerce spokesperson, the crowd was the largest-ever for a Walk of Fame ceremony, breaking a 1998 record set by onlookers at the unveiling of the star for Mexican singer Vicente Fernández.

In 2021, she received a posthumous lifetime achievement award from the Grammys. There was no tribute.

Who is Yolanda Saldívar?

Yolanda Saldívar, a former nurse, was the founder and president of Selena’s fan club. She was also a manager of Selena’s clothing boutiques, Selena Etc., but was fired in early 1995 after money was discovered missing.

In this undated photo provided by Texas Department of Criminal Justice is prison inmate Yolanda Saldívar, who is serving a life sentence at the Patrick L. O’Daniel Unit prison in Gatesville, Texas, after being convicted of killing Tejano music star Selena Quintanilla-Perez. (Texas Department of Criminal Justice via AP)

How did Selena die?

On March 31, 1995, Selena went to Saldívar’s room at the Days Inn motel in Corpus Christi, Texas, to pick up business records she needed for a tax filing, according to court testimony. A confrontation followed.

Selena was shot in the back with a .38-caliber revolver in the motel room, ran outside and collapsed in the lobby. She was rushed to a nearby hospital and pronounced dead about an hour later.

FILE – A portrait of the late singer Selena Quintanilla is seen in the crowd following a posthumous star ceremony for Quintanilla on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on Friday, Nov. 3, 2017, in Los Angeles. (Photo by Chris Pizzello/Invision/AP, File)

Motel employees testified Selena named “Yolanda” in “room 158” as her attacker.

“I didn’t mean to do it. I didn’t mean to kill anybody,” a sobbing Saldívar said during a 9-hour standoff with police, during which she held a gun to her head. She told police she had bought the .38-caliber revolver to kill herself.

What happened at Yolanda Saldívar’s trial?

The trial was moved to Houston because of heavy publicity.

Prosecutors contended that Saldívar shot the 23-year-old after the singer’s family suspected her of embezzling $30,000. The defense argued the gun went off accidentally.

On October 23, 1995, the jury convicted Saldívar of first-degree murder. She was sentenced to life in prison, with the possibility of parole after 30 years — beginning in 2025.

FILE – Suzette Quintanilla, center, sister of the late singer Selena Quintanilla, holds a replica of Selena’s star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame as she poses with, from left, Selena’s husband Chris Perez, her brother A.B. Quintanilla III, and her parents Marcella Ofelia Samora and Abraham Quintanilla Jr. during a posthumous ceremony on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in Los Angeles on Nov. 3, 2017. (Photo by Chris Pizzello/Invision/AP, File)

Saldívar did not face the death penalty because the crime contained none of the aggravating circumstances required under Texas law, such as a multiple murder or a murder committed during a robbery.

In 1999, the Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin turned down Saldívar’s first plea for a new trial. In 2000, her lawyer Bill Berchelmann asked the state to revisit the trial. He argued that prosecutors wrongly dismissed potential jurors because of race, did not disclose the criminal record of a witness and made improper comments in court. He said police also violated Saldívar’s rights by interrogating her after she asked for an attorney.

In 2009, Saldívar lost an appeal because it was filed in the wrong county. She had asked the court to order an appeal filed nine years earlier in Nueces County to move forward, but the state’s highest criminal appeals court said it should have been filed in Harris County, where she was tried and convicted.

She’s incarcerated at the Patrick L. O’Daniel prison unit in Gatesville, Texas, about 90 minutes north of Austin.

How does parole work in Texas?

In Texas, the parole division of the state’s Department of Criminal Justice identifies inmates six months before the date of their initial parole eligibility and pulls their case file for review. Notice of an inmate’s eligibility for parole is sent to officials involved in the trial, any victims and victims’ family members.

Related Articles

Body camera footage is released showing scene outside Gene Hackman’s home

‘Love is Blind’ spent nearly $2M in production costs across Twin Cities

Movie review: De Niro faces off with himself in mob movie ‘The Alto Knights’

After a tribal swap, Eagan native Eva Erickson finds a new ally in hunky stuntman from Long Beach

Lori Barghini and Julia Cobbs to host first public event together since leaving MyTalk 107.1

An institutional parole officer with the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles interviews an inmate and prepares a summary for the board. The victim or the victim’s family members can provide a written statement and can appear in person before board members.

The inmate’s file is then sent to the parole board and voted on by a three-person panel. The panel will vote on a case just prior to the inmate’s parole eligibility date and a majority of two votes is needed for a final decision.

In Texas, the board does not conduct public parole hearings. Parole release decisions are made independently by each panel member.

Representatives for members of Quintanilla-Pérez’s family did not immediately respond to The Associated Press’ request for comment this week.

What happens if Saldívar’s parole is denied? What if it is approved?

A denial by the panel will include the date of the next time an inmate will be eligible for parole.

Saldívar was convicted of first-degree murder, one of the crimes where state law dictates that the next review after a denial can be done anywhere from one to five years from the date of the denial.

An approval by the panel could include special conditions the inmate will have to follow while on parole. Processing time for a release differs from case to case. Once a release certificate with an approved residence plan is issued, it will be audited by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Classification and Records Department and a release date is calculated. Typically, these processes can take two to six weeks to complete.

The governor cannot veto a parole decision by the pardons board. The governor, upon recommendation by a majority of the pardons board, can grant clemency. That includes pardons, commutations and reprieves.

Associated Press reporter Juan A. Lozano contributed to this report from Houston.