In a move that has reignited heated debate over reproductive rights and state surveillance, Texas lawmakers have passed House Bill 7, known officially as the Woman and Child Protection Act. The bill, which awaits Governor Greg Abbott’s expected signature by September 24, 2025, introduces a controversial “bounty hunter” provision, allowing private citizens to sue anyone suspected of helping a pregnant person obtain abortion pills—and to collect a hefty financial reward if successful. According to Courier Texas and The Texas Tribune, this new law marks a significant escalation in Texas’s ongoing campaign to restrict abortion access, particularly through medication.
Under HB 7, anyone—from doctors prescribing abortion-inducing medications to family members or friends who merely research abortion pills for someone—can be sued by private citizens. The law is particularly lucrative for those related to the pregnant person: if a plaintiff is a relative, they stand to gain at least $100,000 from a successful lawsuit. Non-relatives can receive $10,000, with the remaining $90,000 required to be donated to a charity of their choice, provided neither they nor their family benefit financially from the organization. The defendant, whether an out-of-state doctor, a telehealth company, or even a supportive friend, would be responsible for paying the reward, along with attorney fees and court costs.
What’s especially striking—and alarming to critics—is that the law doesn’t require proof that abortion pills were actually distributed or used. Instead, it targets intent. As state Sen. Carol Alvarado (D) explained during legislative debate, a mother could be sued by a disapproving family member simply for researching abortion pills for her pregnant daughter, even if no pills were ever obtained. “It will create a culture of surveillance among community members and families,” warned Nimra Chowdhry, senior state legislative counsel with the Center for Reproductive Rights, in comments to Courier Texas. “It will sow fear and confusion and create an even more hostile environment for all pregnant people in Texas.”
Supporters of the bill argue that it’s a necessary response to what they see as a loophole in enforcement. Despite the state’s sweeping abortion bans, thousands of Texas women have continued to access abortion pills—mifepristone and misoprostol—by mail, often prescribed via telemedicine from states where abortion remains legal. According to Courier Texas, as of 2023, roughly 8,000 pregnant women per month in abortion-ban states were self-managing their abortions at home using these medications. John Seago of Texas Right to Life told The Texas Tribune, “There is a significant gap in the enforcement of pro-life laws that pro-abortion activists have been exploiting in the last couple of years and that is what we are trying to respond to.”
Rep. Jeff Leach (R-Allen), the bill’s author, presented HB 7 as “carefully and meticulously crafted” and described it as “compassionate to its core” on the House floor. Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola), who also sponsored the 2021 Senate Bill 8 (the so-called Heartbeat Act), echoed this sentiment, insisting that Republicans “care about that mom” whom he described as a victim of “Big Pharma” supplying “poisonous pills.” However, multiple medical authorities, including the National Institutes of Health, have affirmed the safety and effectiveness of both mifepristone and misoprostol, with studies showing mifepristone is safer than penicillin or Viagra.
Critics, including Democrats and reproductive rights advocates, see the law as an unprecedented attack on privacy and family trust. “By dangling the opportunity to win at least $100,000 to close family members who sell out a pregnant wife or daughter who used or was curious about abortion pills, this bill is trying to destroy families,” argued Chowdhry. She added, “We will see more horror stories about pregnant women in Texas suffering and dying.” The bill, she said, “puts a target on everyone’s back involved in any way in medication abortion. Republican legislators are gunning to harm pregnant Texans.”
The impact on healthcare providers, both in Texas and out-of-state, is likely to be profound. Blake Rocap, legislative counsel for Avow, an abortion advocacy group, told Courier Texas, “The point of this bill is to create enough fear of these lawsuits to stop physicians in states where abortion is legal from providing care to Texas women.” The law is also designed to circumvent shield laws in states like New York, which protect healthcare providers from civil and criminal lawsuits for assisting out-of-state residents with abortions. As The Texas Tribune reported, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton recently sued a New York doctor for mailing abortion pills to Texas, highlighting the growing legal conflict between states.
The chilling effect extends beyond abortion to miscarriage care. Misoprostol, one of the drugs targeted by the law, is commonly used to treat miscarriages. Yet, according to Courier Texas, many Texas pharmacies have already stopped stocking or dispensing it for fear of prosecution. Between 10 and 20 percent of all pregnancies end in natural miscarriage, and with 6.4 million women of reproductive age in Texas, the potential for unintended harm is vast. The story of Austin mother Kaitlyn Kash, who was turned away from two pharmacies while miscarrying despite having a prescription for misoprostol, underscores the law’s real-world consequences. Kash ultimately had to obtain the medication from an online pharmacy, enduring days of pain and fear while she waited for delivery.
Maternal health statistics in Texas paint a grim picture. In the year following the passage of Senate Bill 8, maternal mortality in Texas rose by 56 percent—compared to an 11 percent increase nationally. Pregnant women in Texas now face a 155 percent higher chance of maternal death than their counterparts in California, where abortion remains legal. Reproductive rights advocates warn that the new law will only worsen these outcomes, as more pregnant people are forced to carry pregnancies to term regardless of health risks.
HB 7 also raises concerns about privacy and potential abuse. Darcy Caballero, political director of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, pointed out that the law’s structure could incentivize people to lie about their relationship to the fetus to claim the full bounty, potentially leading to invasive investigations into family relationships and private health information. Sen. Nathan Johnson (D-Dallas) questioned whether the law was a “cash grab,” suggesting that anti-abortion nonprofits could encourage supporters to file lawsuits and funnel the proceeds to their organizations.
Despite the law’s sweeping reach, pregnant people themselves are exempt from being sued for taking abortion pills. However, the threat of lawsuits against their friends, family, and healthcare providers may leave many Texans isolated and afraid to seek help or even look up information online. “Individuals will be scared to even search for abortion information on the internet,” said Chowdhry. Shellie Hayes-McMahon, executive director of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, remains skeptical that the law will ultimately reduce the use of abortion pills: “Women will find a way to exercise bodily autonomy but what Texas is trying to do is ensure that they are unsafe in doing so.”
As the nation watches Texas once again test the boundaries of state power and personal privacy, the fate of HB 7—and the thousands of Texans it stands to affect—remains uncertain. The law’s supporters hope its threat will serve as a deterrent, while its opponents brace for a wave of lawsuits, confusion, and hardship for those seeking reproductive healthcare in the Lone Star State.