On September 3, 2025, the Texas Senate approved a landmark piece of legislation—House Bill 7—by a 17-8 vote, sending it to Governor Greg Abbott’s desk for a likely signature. This bill, which has been described as the Texas Woman and Child Protection Act, sets forth sweeping new restrictions on abortion pills mailed into the state and opens the door for private citizens to sue manufacturers, distributors, and providers of abortion medication. The move represents a significant escalation in the state’s long-running battle over abortion rights and could offer a model for other states aiming to restrict access to medication abortions.
Texas, already the largest state to have outlawed abortion almost entirely, has seen thousands of its residents continue to terminate pregnancies each month by ordering abortion medication from providers in states where the procedure remains legal. According to estimates cited by The New York Times, by the end of 2024, more than 3,400 Texans were receiving telehealth abortions each month. This practice has flourished, in part, due to shield laws in states like California and New York, which protect healthcare providers from out-of-state prosecution for offering abortion services to patients living in states with bans.
House Bill 7 aims to close what Texas lawmakers see as a loophole. The legislation allows any private citizen—except for Texas women who take abortion medication themselves—to file lawsuits against anyone who mails, prescribes, or provides abortion pills to patients in Texas. Successful plaintiffs could receive up to $100,000 in damages per case, a figure that supporters say will serve as a powerful deterrent to those distributing abortion drugs in the state. The bill also enables lawsuits against pharmaceutical manufacturers if their medications are used by Texans for abortion purposes, a provision that could have ramifications for drug development and access well beyond Texas’ borders (The Hill).
“You manufacture and ship poisonous illegal drugs into Texas, and people are harmed, you will be held accountable,” said State Senator Bryan Hughes, a Republican and one of the bill’s authors, during the Senate debate. “We make no apology for that. Texas must defend our citizens, and that’s what this bill is about.” Hughes further argued on the Senate floor, “That little unborn baby growing inside her mother’s womb is the most helpless, the most innocent, and the most deserving of our protection that a human being can ever be.”
The bill’s passage marks a major win for anti-abortion groups such as Texas Right to Life, Students for Life of America, and Americans United for Life, all of which have backed the legislation as part of a broader national effort to limit access to abortion-inducing drugs. The bill is modeled on legislation developed by Students for Life and adopted as a template by the National Association of Christian Lawmakers (Bloomberg Law).
Supporters argue that the law is necessary to protect women and unborn children, especially as telehealth abortions have soared in popularity since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which allowed states to set their own abortion laws. Despite the proliferation of state bans, the number of abortions performed in the United States has actually increased, with about one in four conducted via telehealth—and half of those for people living in states with abortion restrictions (The New York Times).
Yet, the bill has drawn fierce criticism from Democrats and reproductive rights advocates, who argue it will fuel a “state of surveillance” and escalate legal battles between states. “This bill does not protect women, children or families,” said State Senator Carol Alvarado, a Democrat and chair of the chamber’s Democratic Caucus, during debate. “It deputizes Texans as bounty hunters. It replaces compassion with suspicion.” Alvarado warned, “Imagine living in fear of the man behind you at the pharmacy, of the delivery driver, even of your own family. Every word, every prescription, every private conversation could be twisted into evidence. That’s neither freedom nor protections, it’s surveillance and isolation.”
State Senator Molly Cook, another Democrat and an emergency room nurse, cautioned that the bill would “escalate national conflict” by dragging Texas into “another legal war with other states” that have enacted shield laws to protect abortion providers. Other Democratic lawmakers, such as Sen. Nathan Johnson, have argued that the bill violates multiple provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including the commerce clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause (Bloomberg Law).
The legislation’s journey to passage was anything but smooth. Initially proposed in March 2025, an earlier version failed to clear the regular legislative session, and a subsequent attempt stalled during the first special session, which ended on August 15 after Democratic lawmakers temporarily left the state in protest of new congressional maps. Governor Abbott then called a second month-long special session, which began on August 15, ultimately resulting in the bill’s approval (The New York Times).
To address concerns raised by anti-abortion groups, the bill was revised to limit financial incentives for unrelated plaintiffs. Under the final version, plaintiffs related to the “unborn child” can receive $100,000 in damages, while those with no connection to the pregnancy are eligible for $10,000, with the remaining $90,000 donated to charity—a compromise designed to curb frivolous lawsuits and protect patient privacy. The bill also explicitly prohibits using civil lawsuits to force abortion patients to sit for depositions.
Legal skirmishes are already underway. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched a civil lawsuit against Dr. Margaret Carpenter, a New York-based shield law provider, while Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill has filed criminal charges against Carpenter. Two Texas residents have also filed separate civil cases against shield law providers, with legal representation from Jonathan Mitchell, Texas’ former solicitor general. These cases are being closely watched as potential tests of the bill’s reach and the durability of shield laws in other states (The Hill).
Meanwhile, reproductive health providers and major medical organizations continue to defend the safety and efficacy of mifepristone and misoprostol—the two drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration for medication abortions within the first ten weeks of pregnancy. Global health organizations, including the World Health Organization, have endorsed telehealth abortions as safe and effective. Despite the new Texas law, shield law providers in other states remain defiant. “If it’s state versus state, it feels like we’ve got a solid plan,” said one California-based physician, who requested anonymity due to ongoing lawsuits against colleagues.
Legal analysts predict that if more states follow Texas’ lead, the U.S. could see a wave of interstate disputes challenging the limits of state authority to restrict access to FDA-approved medications and penalize out-of-state providers protected by their own laws. The bill’s supporters maintain that it is a necessary step to enforce Texas’ near-total abortion ban, while critics warn that it will only deepen divisions and undermine reproductive rights nationwide.
As the nation watches Texas, the battle lines over abortion access are being redrawn yet again—this time, in courtrooms and legislatures across the country, with the fate of telehealth abortion hanging in the balance.
