The past week has brought a flurry of developments in the ongoing battle over abortion rights in Texas and beyond, with new legislation, lawsuits, and shifting arguments shaping the landscape in surprising ways. As lawmakers and activists spar over the future of abortion access, the debate is increasingly centered on the role of telehealth services and claims of reproductive coercion—raising questions about who is truly being protected and whose interests are being served.
On August 28, 2025, the Texas House passed HB 7, a sweeping and controversial anti-abortion bill that has drawn fierce criticism from reproductive rights advocates and legal experts alike. According to reporting from Abortion, Every Day, the bill empowers private citizens to sue anyone who mails abortion pills into Texas for at least $100,000. The scope of potential defendants is broad: manufacturers, hotline operators, and even friends who pick up medication from a post office box could find themselves in the legal crosshairs. The law goes even further, permitting lawsuits against those who merely "intend" to send abortion pills—such as providers who advertise that they ship medication to Texas residents.
What sets HB 7 apart from previous measures is its unique financial structure. Any private citizen, not just those directly affected, can sue, and $90,000 of the $100,000 penalty is earmarked for a "charitable organization." Critics argue this provision effectively incentivizes anti-abortion groups to run sting operations, ordering pills from out-of-state providers, suing, and then funneling the majority of the award to organizations aligned with their cause. As Abortion, Every Day notes, "anti-abortion activists have always used Texas as a laboratory for extreme bills that later pop up in other states," making this development one to watch closely.
But Texas lawmakers and activists are not stopping there. In a coordinated move, Texas and Florida joined an ongoing lawsuit led by Republican attorneys general from Kansas, Missouri, and Idaho challenging the FDA's approval of mifepristone, a key medication used in abortion care. The suit claims the FDA erred in approving the drug, citing safety concerns and seeking to reverse its approval. This legal offensive, as detailed by Abortion, Every Day, is part of a broader campaign to restrict access to abortion pills nationwide, particularly as telehealth services have become a lifeline for many in states with strict bans.
Meanwhile, a new front in the legal war over abortion has opened in Texas federal courts. In September 2025, two wrongful death lawsuits were filed, each alleging that women were coerced into taking abortion pills prescribed via out-of-state telehealth providers. According to The 19th, one case claims a woman was unknowingly given abortion medication mixed into her hot chocolate—a charge local police investigated and ultimately deemed unfounded. The other alleges a woman was forced to take abortion pills by her mother and estranged husband. Both lawsuits are spearheaded by Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent architect of Texas anti-abortion policy and the state’s former solicitor general.
These lawsuits mark a new phase in the anti-abortion movement’s strategy. Rather than targeting patients directly, the suits go after telehealth abortion providers, arguing that their online systems lack sufficient safeguards to prevent coercion and fraud. Plaintiffs assert that telehealth abortion has made it easier for bad actors to obtain medication under false pretenses and force pregnant people into unwanted abortions. As The 19th reports, this line of argument is now being used to justify laws like HB 7, which allow for private lawsuits against those who mail abortion pills into Texas.
However, experts and health care providers push back against the narrative that coercion to have abortions is widespread. Mary Ziegler, an abortion law historian at the University of California, Davis, told The 19th, "You see abortion opponents realizing everyone believes they’re misogynistic or opposed to women, so there’s an effort to change the narrative." Existing research supports this view: a 2011 paper found that, in most cases, partners agreed on the abortion decision, and when there was disagreement, men were more likely to prevent someone from seeking an abortion than to compel one. Further, a 2020 study showed that the vast majority of people who get abortions do not regret their decision.
Dr. Angel Foster, who leads the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project, a telehealth practice that prescribes and mails abortion pills nationwide, echoed this sentiment. "What we’ve seen more than anything else is our patients are making a decision to have an abortion so they’re not connected to a violent partner. We hear that every day from our patients, and we also hear from our patients whose partners are trying to force them to continue pregnancies," she explained to The 19th. Foster emphasized that her team has encountered men attempting to fraudulently obtain medication for women in their lives, but these requests are rejected. "Only people seeking abortion medication for their own use and who have certified that they will be the ones taking the pills are able to receive a prescription," she said.
Still, the patchwork of telehealth abortion services means that screening for coercion varies. Aid Access, one of the largest telehealth abortion providers in the U.S., sends medication to about 6,000 patients monthly. Their intake forms specifically ask whether patients are being coerced and require attestation that the medication is for their own use. However, as one California-based doctor prescribing through Aid Access told The 19th, in-depth communication with every patient is "impractical." The doctor, who requested anonymity due to fears of legal targeting, explained, "You need to trust the person reaching out to you is the person seeking your services. The rate of coercion is extremely small, but not zero, and we just want to be able to help many, many people. We acknowledge that there will be some people that lie and coerce their partners."
Other providers, like Debra Lynch of Her Safe Harbor, a telehealth practice based in California, have taken a different approach. Lynch told The 19th that her organization prioritizes phone calls with patients to verify consent and screen for coercion. "Part of our regular screening process in our phone calls is to ask them, are they feeling any type of pressure to be doing this, how comfortable do they feel," she said. "Not that anyone has to justify an abortion for any reason. Even if it’s just because she wants it, it’s fine. We do want to make sure it’s their choice."
Professional standards set by the National Abortion Federation encourage clinicians to obtain "informed consent" from patients, but practices vary widely. Some clinics rely on intake forms, while others offer one-on-one counseling. Dr. Nisha Verma, an Atlanta-based OBGYN, pointed out that even forms can be effective for screening if clinicians follow up on any red flags. "You can argue that an intake form isn’t useless in terms of screening if that's what a practice has capacity for, and making sure you’re following up on that," she told The 19th.
As the legal and political battles rage on, the real-life experiences of patients often get lost in the shuffle. The available data and testimony from providers suggest that while coercion to have an abortion does occur, it is far less common than opponents claim—and far less common than coercion to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Yet, with Texas setting the pace for restrictive legislation and legal tactics, the stakes for patients, providers, and advocates remain high.
With new laws, lawsuits, and narratives emerging almost weekly, the future of abortion access in Texas and across the United States hangs in the balance. For now, the debate continues to shift, shaped as much by political strategy as by the lived realities of those seeking care.
