Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) is poised to sign a new law allowing him to take legal action against anyone involved in prescribing, distributing, or providing abortion medications within Texas.
Both supporters and critics of the legislation believe it could set a precedent for other states contemplating similar restrictions on abortion pills, potentially igniting a legal conflict between states with bans and those that still permit the medications.
Moreover, it’s thought that even in states where the law is adopted, the availability of abortion drugs might be compromised if manufacturers and distributors decide to refrain from shipping their products there to circumvent legal issues.
The state Senate approved House Bill 7 with a 17-8 vote late on Wednesday. Before the vote, state Senator Brian Hughes (R) advocated for the bill, asserting it would safeguard fetal health and protect women from “toxic illegal drugs.”
On a related note, he emphasized that those responsible for manufacturing and distributing such drugs would be held accountable. “If you send toxic illegal drugs to Texas and people are harmed, you bear responsibility for that. We stand firm on this,” he said. “Texas has a duty to protect its residents, and that’s the intent behind this bill.”
It remains uncertain when Abbott will enact the bill, as his office has not provided details on the timing.
The Texans can sue for up to $100,000 in damages
The law permits nearly anyone in Texas to file lawsuits against the prescribers, distributors, or manufacturers of abortion drugs. A plaintiff who succeeds in their suit could be awarded damages of up to $100,000.
In an updated version of the bill passed last week, women who use abortion drugs to terminate their pregnancies are granted immunity from lawsuits.
This revised version also includes protections for certain drug distributors and providers.
Hospitals and physicians practicing solely within Texas cannot be sued, nor can those involved in distributing abortion medications for emergency medical situations, ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, or stillbirths.
Individuals with histories of domestic violence are also prohibited from suing abortion drug providers and manufacturers.
The latest Texas crackdown on abortion pills
Texas has enacted near-total restrictions on abortions and imposes severe penalties for violations of its Abortion Act.
Nevertheless, abortions are still taking place in the state, aided by mail-order abortion drugs accessible through Telehealth providers in states with protective abortion laws.
HB 7 represents the latest effort by Texas Republicans to stifle access to abortion pills after unsuccessful attempts to limit the influx of these medications through lawsuits aimed at providers in California and New York.
Jessica Waters, a resident scholar at an American University specializing in reproductive rights law, suggested that this move is part of a broader strategic campaign.
In December, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton initiated a lawsuit against New York physician Margaret Carpenter for allegedly sending abortion medications to a woman in Texas. A state judge ordered Carpenter to cease her distribution of abortion pills and imposed a $100,000 fine.
Neither Carpenter nor her attorney responded to the suit or attended any court hearings in Texas.
Paxton’s office subsequently attempted to compel the New York County Clerk to enforce default judgments and approve penalties, but the clerk declined, citing New York’s Abortion Shield Act as protective of Carpenter.
A Texas resident has also filed a civil lawsuit against a California doctor for purportedly supplying abortion medication. Jonathan Mitchell, an attorney involved in shaping many abortion regulations in Texas, represented Jerry Rodriguez in this case.
Alongside Paxton, 14 other Republican Attorneys General are intensifying their challenge against the Abortion Shield Act, urging for intervention in the interstate disputes over abortion laws.
“Blueprints for other parts of the country”
In late August, Texas and Florida sought permission from federal judges to become involved in a lawsuit aimed at restricting access to Mifepristone, one of the two medications commonly used for abortions.
The lawsuit, driven by Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho, claims improper restrictions have been applied, including reviewing the FDA’s endorsement of Mifepristone and its availability by mail.
Experts suggest that the various legal initiatives from Texas ultimately aim to challenge the Supreme Court concerning the implications of the Abortion Shield Act and the abortion laws in states with opposing views.
Waters expressed that these parallel efforts suggest a strategy where at least one could gain traction.
Both advocates and detractors of the bill agree it’s likely to be viewed as a model for other states, spurring a wave of similar legislation and subsequent legal actions against providers and manufacturers.
Following the bill’s passage, John Shego, president of Texas’ Rights to Life, referred to it as “a blueprint for the rest of the country.”
“Texas Life to Life has collaborated with lawmakers since November to formulate the most effective legal defenses against out-of-state businesses and activists distributing abortion pills to Texas,” he indicated in a statement. “This trend results in thousands of lives lost and negatively impacts mothers each year, but today our legislation can serve as a reference for others nationwide.”
