Texas Passes Bill Targeting Abortion Pills
The bill allows private citizens to sue health care providers or manufacturers who mail or prescribe abortion medication to Texans
Just after midnight on Thursday, September 4, the Texas Senate officially adjourned the second special session, coming a few hours after the House. One of the final big ticket agenda items that cleared both chambers was House Bill 7, a sweeping bill that allows private citizens to sue health care providers or manufacturers who mail or prescribe abortion medication to Texans.
Governor Abbott is expected to sign the state’s latest abortion restriction. Under HB 7, any successful lawsuit against an abortion provider or manufacturer can net a plaintiff up to $100,000. However, if a plaintiff is not related to the recipient of the medication, they would be capped at receiving $10,000 (the rest would go to charity).
Texas has been at the forefront of abortion-stopping legislation, especially the kind that rely upon civil lawsuits. Over four years ago, Senate Bill 8, the state’s near-total abortion ban went into effect (months before Roe v. Wade was overturned). SB 8 was at the time a novel abortion ban in that it allowed private citizens to file civil lawsuits against any person who “aids or abets” an abortion in the state.
The architect of SB 8 was the state’s former solicitor general, Jonathan Mitchell. And during Senate debate about HB 7, State Sen. Nathan Johnson got the Republican State. Sen. Bryan Hughes to admit that Mitchell was also instrumental in crafting the newest abortion restriction, this one specifically targeting abortion pills. “We welcomed his help,” said Hughes about Mitchell. “We asked for his help.”
Mitchell has been outspoken about his quest to use any means to restrict abortion access, even telling The New York Times in 2024 that the 1873 Comstock Act could be used to usher in a de facto national abortion ban. Mitchell is currently representing a Texas man in a federal lawsuit against a California abortion provider, and argues that the physician violated the obscenity law, which is still technically on the books (though parts of it have been nullified).
Mitchell has also been spearheading several other civil lawsuits, including one from a Corpus Christi woman who alleged she was coerced into a medication abortion. The man who she alleges gave her medication abortion without her consent is countersuing for $100 million according to Autonomy News. The countersuit also alleges that the original civil lawsuit was filed to coincide with a Texas Senate hearing about HB 7.
Statements blasting HB 7 came immediately after it cleared its final hurdle in the state senate. Senate Democrats noted that the bill’s broad scope could potentially punish intent. “Conversations, compassion and even suspicion become grounds for lawsuits,” they wrote after the Senate passage of HB 7.
HB 7 also directly targets shield laws, which many blue states like California and New York have enacted to protect abortion providers. Senate Democrats noted the hypocrisy of HB 7 targeting out-of-state providers.
HB 7 invites lawsuits against providers and pharmacies in other states for care that is fully legal in their own states. If California or New York tried to impose their laws on Texans, this legislature would erupt in outrage.
Eroding or fully ending shield laws is clearly a goal for Texas Republicans. Attorney General Ken Paxton has previously announced his office had filed cease and desist letters to medical organizations that provide and ship abortion medication to Texans. And the Texas AG’s office has also asked to join a lawsuit with other red states suing the FDA over the approval of mifepristone, one of the two drugs used in an abortion medication.
