On September 17, 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 7 (HB 7) into law, igniting a fresh wave of debate over abortion rights, state authority, and the reach of private litigation. The law, set to take effect on December 4, 2025, introduces sweeping new restrictions on the distribution and provision of abortion-inducing drugs in Texas, while empowering private citizens—rather than state officials—to enforce its provisions through civil lawsuits.
HB 7 prohibits any person from manufacturing or distributing abortion-inducing drugs in Texas, and further bans mailing, transporting, prescribing, or providing such drugs to anyone in the state. Enforcement is notably not the responsibility of Texas district attorneys or state officials. Instead, as reported by The Texas Tribune, the law relies exclusively on “qui tam” actions, a legal mechanism that allows private citizens to file lawsuits on behalf of the state and receive a portion of any financial penalties awarded.
Successful plaintiffs, known as relators, are entitled to at least $100,000 in damages per violation, plus injunctive relief. If a plaintiff is not directly related to the fetus involved in the alleged violation, they are entitled to only 10% of the damages, with the remainder required to be donated to a charity of their choosing. The law stipulates that such lawsuits must be filed within six years of the alleged violation, setting a lengthy window for potential litigation.
Importantly, HB 7 includes several notable exemptions. Women who take abortion pills—whether for elective abortions or after miscarriages—cannot be sued under the bill. The law also shields internet service providers, search engines, cloud providers, transportation companies (like rideshare or taxi services), and delivery networks from liability. Pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, and common carriers are conditionally exempt if they adopt and enforce policies prohibiting the use, distribution, or delivery of abortion-inducing drugs except in limited, permitted circumstances such as emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, or miscarriages.
According to The Texas Tribune, the bill was amended in collaboration with anti-abortion organizations, the Texas Medical Association, and the Texas Hospital Association to include these exemptions and additional protections for the identities and personal health information of women who have had abortions or sought abortion pills. The amendments also shield Texas-licensed hospitals and physicians acting for legitimate medical reasons.
Supporters of the bill, such as Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola), argue that it is about protecting “little unborn babies” and their mothers. “Make no mistake, Big Pharma is taking advantage of loopholes in the law and mailing these bills directly to vulnerable women,” Hughes said during the Senate debate. Ashley Leenerts, legislative director for Texas Right to Life, called HB 7 “the strongest proposed tool to stop this crisis,” asserting that it “provides a new avenue to undermine anti-state laws and empowers women who are tragically targets of the abortion industry to hold traffickers accountable.” Amy O’Donnell, communications director for Texas Alliance for Life, also voiced support, stating, “The revised version of HB 7 provides another tool against illegal abortion-by-mail while including vital protections for women.”
But the law’s detractors see it quite differently. Critics, including Sen. Carol Alvarado (D-Houston), have called HB 7 a measure that “deputizes Texans as bounty hunters” and punishes even the intent to help someone access abortion pills. Alvarado described a scenario where a mother researching abortion pills for her pregnant daughter could be sued by a disagreeing family member—her “crime” being open family communication. Sen. Nathan Johnson (D-Dallas) raised concerns about the bill targeting people who merely consider helping women obtain abortion pills, not just those who take concrete action. Rep. Erin Zwiener (D-Driftwood) warned that the bill could incentivize “sting operations” by allowing unrelated plaintiffs to profit from lawsuits.
Legal experts and advocacy groups have also flagged HB 7’s potential to create confusion and legal peril. The law’s definitions of “distribute” and “provide” are not clearly spelled out, raising questions about liability for employers or benefit plan sponsors whose health plans cover emergency contraception. While the law states it does not apply to “speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment,” it leaves unclear where protected advocacy ends and actionable provision begins. As noted in legal analysis, qui tam relators may be inexperienced and highly motivated—both ideologically and financially—to bring multiple or broad lawsuits, potentially exposing a wide range of parties to costly litigation, even if their actual risk of liability is low.
Perhaps most controversially, HB 7 attempts to override so-called “shield laws” or “clawback provisions” in other states. These laws are designed to protect individuals and companies from being sued in Texas over actions that are legal in their own states, particularly regarding reproductive or gender-affirming care. The new Texas law seeks to nullify such protections, privileging the enforcement of Texas law and erecting barriers to counter-suits from out-of-state defendants. The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas sharply criticized HB 7 for extending Texas’ abortion ban “far beyond state borders” and contradicting the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling, which held that each state should set its own abortion laws.
Democratic lawmakers and reproductive health advocates have raised alarms about the practical consequences for Texans. Blair Wallace, policy and advocacy strategist at the ACLU of Texas, warned, “It will fuel fear among manufacturers and providers nationwide, while encouraging neighbors to police one another’s reproductive lives, further isolating pregnant Texans, and punishing the people who care for them.” Texas House Minority Leader Rep. Gene Wu (D-Houston) went further, arguing, “This bill was written specifically to allow extremist organizations to enrich themselves while terrorizing innocent Texas women.” The Texas House Democratic Caucus and the Texas Women’s Health Caucus claimed the bill “creates a system designed to bankrupt anyone who dares to help Texas women.”
Medical professionals have also voiced strong objections. Dr. Zeke Silva, chair of the Texas Medical Association’s council on legislation, cautioned that “this bill as filed runs the risk of having a chilling effect on our physician’s ability” to make the best health care decisions for patients. Dr. Deborah Fuller, a Dallas OB-GYN, pointed to rising maternal mortality rates in Texas since the state’s 2021 abortion ban, arguing that lawmakers should be expanding, not restricting, maternal health care. According to a ProPublica investigation, pregnancy-related sepsis and deaths in Texas grew by 50% after the ban.
The bill’s passage comes amid estimates that as many as 19,000 orders for abortion pills were placed by Texans after the state’s initial abortion ban. Many have turned to online pharmacies and out-of-state providers to obtain medication to terminate pregnancies, despite legal risks. Opponents have dubbed the measure the “snitches get riches bill,” emphasizing its potential to further restrict reproductive health access and create a climate of fear among those seeking or providing care. Kamyon Conner, executive director of the Texas Equal Access Fund, summed up this view: “It makes people more fearful to reach out for abortion care.”
As Texas prepares for HB 7 to take effect, the state stands at the center of a national debate over reproductive rights, state sovereignty, and the power of private citizens to enforce contentious laws. The coming months are likely to see legal challenges, continued political wrangling, and, for many Texans, growing uncertainty about the future of reproductive health care.
