In a landmark legal battle that could reshape abortion access across the United States, a Texas man, Jerry Rodriguez, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against California physician Dr. Remy Coeytaux. The lawsuit, filed on July 20, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, marks the first-ever interstate wrongful death claim related to abortion, thrusting into the spotlight the complex and often conflicting state and federal abortion laws that have emerged since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Rodriguez alleges that Dr. Coeytaux mailed abortion-inducing pills to his girlfriend, who was pregnant with his child, in violation of Texas state law. The complaint accuses Coeytaux of "purposefully and knowingly mailing abortion-inducing drugs into Texas" and aiding an illegal self-managed abortion that resulted in the death of the fetus. Rodriguez is seeking damages exceeding $75,000 and an injunction to prevent Coeytaux from distributing abortion medications to Texans in the future. Notably, Rodriguez is suing not only for personal damages but also on behalf of "all current and future fathers of unborn children in the United States," a move that underscores the broader ambitions of this case.
Texas law criminalizes assisting a pregnant woman in obtaining a self-managed abortion, classifying such assistance as murder and allowing wrongful death suits against the assister. However, the woman undergoing the abortion cannot be prosecuted. This legal framework has enabled antiabortion activists in Texas to pursue men willing to bring lawsuits against those who facilitate abortions for their partners. The lawsuit further claims that it is a state jail felony for anyone other than a Texas-licensed physician to provide abortion-inducing drugs for the purpose of inducing an abortion.
The lawsuit details a tangled personal situation: Rodriguez began dating his girlfriend in June 2024 while she was still legally married but separated from her husband, Adam Garza. According to the complaint, Garza twice ordered abortion medication from Dr. Coeytaux after the woman became pregnant by Rodriguez, allegedly with the intent to "murder Mr. Rodriguez’s unborn child" and exerted pressure on her to take the abortion pills. A Venmo receipt included in the lawsuit confirms Garza's purchase from Coeytaux, with a reference that appears to be a homonym for "Aid Access," an organization known for shipping abortion-inducing drugs into states where abortion is restricted or banned.
While Texas enforces strict abortion bans, California, where Dr. Coeytaux lives and practices, offers robust protections for abortion providers. Since January 2024, California's shield law prohibits state officials from extraditing individuals accused of abortion-related crimes to other states where such acts are illegal. This law also protects pharmacists who dispense abortion pills like mifepristone to patients in states with restrictive abortion laws. As a result, California has become a sanctuary state for reproductive health providers, though these protections have yet to be fully tested in federal court.
The lawsuit also invokes the Comstock Act of 1873, a rarely enforced federal statute that bans the mailing of "obscene, lewd, lascivious" materials, explicitly including abortifacients and abortion-related items. While the law was largely dormant for decades, abortion opponents, including Jonathan Mitchell—the conservative attorney behind Texas's stringent "heartbeat" abortion law—are seeking to revive its enforcement to block the mailing of abortion pills to states like Texas. Mitchell, who is orchestrating this lawsuit on Rodriguez's behalf, aims not only to secure damages but also to have the court ban the mailing of abortion medication to states where it is prohibited.
This case arrives amid a broader conservative legal strategy targeting telehealth abortions, which have surged since Roe's reversal. Telemedicine abortions, which involve virtual consultations and the mailing of abortion pills, now account for roughly one in four abortions in the United States. Approximately half of these telehealth abortions are provided by medical professionals in states with shield laws like California and New York, allowing patients in restrictive states to access abortion medication safely and affordably without traveling.
Antiabortion officials in states such as Texas and Louisiana have been aggressively pursuing legal action against providers they accuse of violating state abortion bans by mailing pills across state lines. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a civil suit against a New York physician, Dr. Maggie Carpenter, in December 2024, followed by criminal charges in Louisiana. Despite these efforts, New York officials have refused to comply with extradition requests, citing their state's shield laws and protecting providers from out-of-state prosecution. These legal battles have so far stalled in state courts, prompting conservatives to explore federal avenues like the Rodriguez lawsuit to challenge the telehealth abortion model.
Experts warn that the Rodriguez case could escalate to higher courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit—a conservative-leaning court—and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have expressed openness to applying the Comstock Act to abortion pills, raising the stakes for the case's outcome. Mary Ziegler, a legal historian specializing in abortion law, remarked, "This is a big deal no matter what happens with this lawsuit. We're back to the same 'can one state force another state to bend to its will' question we've been at from the beginning." The case encapsulates the ongoing tension between states seeking to enforce abortion restrictions and others protecting reproductive rights.
Meanwhile, the federal government has remained cautious. The U.S. Department of Justice under President Joe Biden issued a memorandum in 2022 affirming that the U.S. Postal Service can mail abortion medication when senders do not know the drugs may be used unlawfully. However, Republican lawmakers have pushed to restrict access further. Missouri Senator Josh Hawley introduced legislation in May 2025 aimed at reinstating older regulations on mifepristone to effectively halt its distribution via mail. Conversely, Democratic Senator Tina Smith reintroduced a bill to repeal parts of the Comstock Act that impede medication abortion access.
Amid these legal and political battles, abortion providers and advocates emphasize the resilience of telehealth abortion services. Dr. Angel Foster, co-founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, noted, "You can't put this genie back in the bottle. Medication abortion pills are here to stay, regardless of what happens with these pills and how they're regulated in the United States." The Society of Family Planning's recent report highlights that telehealth abortions are increasingly common, with nearly half provided by doctors in shield states.
Rodriguez's lawsuit also seeks to hold manufacturers and distributors of abortion pills accountable for the alleged wrongful death, planning to add them as defendants once identified. This approach reflects a fetal personhood argument, asserting legal rights for fetuses and embryos. The lawsuit's broad scope and federal filing signal an escalation in antiabortion legal tactics, aiming to close the telehealth abortion "loophole" and challenge the protections offered by shield laws.
As this unprecedented case unfolds, it promises to test the limits of interstate legal conflicts over abortion, the applicability of antiquated federal statutes like the Comstock Act, and the future of telehealth abortion access in America. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences, potentially redefining the balance of power between states and reshaping reproductive health care access for millions.
