Private citizens in Texas could soon gain the ability to sue individuals who provide abortion pills to patients within the state, under a recently enacted bill that intensifies the state’s crackdown on abortion access.
The proposed legislation recently secured approval from both chambers of the Republican-dominated state legislature. It now awaits the signature of Republican Governor Greg Abbott, known for his public anti-abortion stance, making its enactment widely anticipated. Should it become law, it would take effect in December and represent the nation’s first such measure.
“Texas is pioneering this approach,” commented Elizabeth Sepper, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law. “I believe this will serve as another instrument many states will likely consider and adopt in 2026.”
Texas currently maintains some of the nation’s most stringent abortion restrictions, having prohibited abortion in nearly all circumstances. The state already permits private citizens to sue individuals, including healthcare providers, who assist patients in accessing abortion after approximately six weeks of pregnancy. However, HB 7 expands the potential for lawsuits significantly by authorizing private citizens to pursue claims for a minimum of $100,000 in damages against manufacturers, providers, and others who supply abortion medication to Texas. Pregnant individuals using the medication themselves would be exempt from liability.
The $100,000 in damages could be awarded entirely to the pregnant person, the individual who caused the pregnancy, or specific close relatives. If a different party initiates such a lawsuit, they might receive $10,000, with the balance being donated to charity.
Sepper describes these awards as “enormous,” adding, “I believe it introduces a genuine possibility of what are essentially harassing lawsuits and fishing expeditions against individuals.”
Opponents of abortion contend that this legislation aims to safeguard women and fetuses. John Seago, president of the anti-abortion organization Texas Right to Life, praised the bill’s approval, labeling it “a phenomenal victory for the pro-life movement here in Texas.”
He stated that “It represents the most deliberate and aggressive response to the radical trends we’ve observed on the pro-abortion side over the past three years, involving the mailing of abortion pills into Texas and attempts to use a novel legal concept known as shield laws as protection.” He further noted that HB 7 would aid in upholding current Texas policies.
Conversely, abortion rights proponents and state Democrats have criticized the bill, comparing it to a bounty hunter system that empowers anyone to report individuals facilitating access to abortion pills. They argue the bill aims to instill fear in out-of-state providers who benefit from shield laws in their home states when dispatching medication to patients in states with abortion bans.
Leah Duane, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, characterized HB 7 as “fear-mongering” legislation. Duane asserted, “They are attempting to frighten Texans away from seeking medication abortion. However, Texans are not intimidated.”
Medication abortion constitutes the most common method of abortion nationwide. In the period following the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, which allowed states to implement their own abortion prohibitions, advocates have emphasized that abortion pills dispensed through telehealth services have provided a “lifeline” for numerous individuals residing in restricted states.
Duane stated, “The extremist anti-abortion proponents responsible for the overturning of Roe and this legislation will employ all means to halt every abortion occurring in the nation; this represents the subsequent phase in their protracted struggle toward that objective.” She continued, “Nonetheless, we understand that individuals have always had abortions and will continue to do so. People require abortions to preserve their lives, protect their families, and safeguard their livelihoods.”
Shield laws, implemented in 18 states and Washington, D.C., aim to safeguard doctors providing medication or in-clinic abortions from legal action originating in their home states. These laws have sparked conflicts between states that protect abortion access and those that have prohibited it. For example, Texas initiated a civil lawsuit against New York-based Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter, alleging she prescribed abortion pills via telemedicine to a Texas resident. Carpenter also faces felony charges in Louisiana for purportedly prescribing abortion pills via telemedicine to a resident in that state. However, New York Governor Kathy Hochul has declined to extradite Carpenter, citing the state’s shield law.
Numerous states that have prohibited or limited abortion have encountered difficulties in countering shield laws and the availability of abortion pills. Sepper notes that HB 7 represents the most recent attempt in this endeavor. She believes that whether other states emulate Texas by enacting similar legislation will hinge on HB 7’s effectiveness in curbing abortion pill usage within the state, assuming Governor Abbott signs the bill as anticipated.
Should the bill be enacted, Sepper foresees it triggering interstate legal conflicts.
Sepper stated, “HB 7 targets several entities. One aim is to instill a climate of fear among individuals within Texas regarding assisting anyone in obtaining medication abortion. Another target is manufacturers of abortion medication. Additionally, it targets both out-of-state healthcare providers who utilize telehealth to distribute medication abortion in Texas, and frankly, the states where these providers reside.”
She concluded, “In essence, HB 7 targets not only providers in other states but also, quite genuinely, the more abortion-friendly states that possess laws permitting the relatively free distribution of abortion services.”
