Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has escalated a legal battle that highlights the deep divisions over abortion rights between Texas and New York, two states with starkly contrasting laws on the issue. At the center of the dispute is Dr. Margaret Carpenter, a New York-based physician accused by Texas authorities of violating the Lone Star State's strict abortion ban by prescribing and mailing abortion-inducing medication to a 20-year-old woman residing in Collin County, Texas.
In December 2024, Paxton filed a civil lawsuit against Carpenter in Texas state court, alleging she unlawfully provided abortion medication to a Texas resident. Carpenter did not respond to the lawsuit or appear in court, leading a Texas judge to issue a summary judgment against her. The court ordered Carpenter to pay over $100,000 in penalties and imposed a permanent injunction against her. However, enforcing this judgment outside Texas has proven difficult due to New York's protective legal framework.
New York's Shield Law, enacted in June 2023 following the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, is designed to protect medical providers offering reproductive and gender-affirming care from out-of-state legal actions. This law broadly prohibits New York government officials and agencies from cooperating with investigations or enforcement efforts related to reproductive health care services lawfully provided within the state.
Acting Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck, who oversees the jurisdiction where Carpenter resides, has twice refused to file Texas’s judgment against Carpenter, citing the Shield Law as his legal basis. In March 2025, after consulting with legal experts and New York's Attorney General Letitia James’s office, Bruck rejected Paxton’s initial request to docket the Texas ruling in New York courts, which would have authorized its enforcement. Bruck explained, “The (shield) law is very clear: It says that no government employee or agency shall comply with any out-of-state (abortion-related) proceeding, civil or criminal. We are government employees. This is a proceeding. It is civil. A judgment is part of a civil case. And so in my opinion, there’s really no gray area.”
Despite Paxton’s office resubmitting the filings and urging Bruck to reverse his decision by a July 16 deadline, the clerk maintained his stance. In a July 14 letter, Bruck wrote, “That rejection stands. Resubmitting the same materials does not alter the outcome. While I’m not entirely sure how things work in Texas, here in New York, a rejection means the matter is closed. Have a good day. Excelsior.”
Paxton’s response has been vehement. Describing Carpenter as a “radical abortionist who must face justice,” he asserted, “No matter where they reside, pro-abortion extremists who send drugs designed to kill the unborn into Texas will face the full force of our state’s pro-life laws.” The Texas Attorney General’s office has now filed a writ of mandamus against Bruck, a court order that would compel the clerk to perform his official duty and file the Texas judgment.
Governor Kathy Hochul of New York has strongly defended Carpenter and the Shield Law. On July 28, 2025, she stated, “Paxton has repeatedly tried to file a judgment against a New York doctor, and our response has been clear: hell no. These extremists are determined to punish a New York doctor for providing safe, legal abortion care. It’s pathetic. It’s dangerous. And it won’t happen on our watch. They picked the wrong state and the wrong governor—and I’ll never stop fighting to protect women’s reproductive freedom.”
New York is among 18 states plus Washington, D.C., that have enacted abortion shield laws, aiming to protect providers from legal consequences when offering reproductive health care to patients in states with restrictive abortion laws. These laws have become increasingly significant as medication abortion, which involves drugs like mifepristone, has grown to account for nearly two-thirds of abortions in the United States by 2023.
Carpenter, who is based in New Paltz, New York, is not only a practicing physician but also a founder and co-medical director of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine. Her work providing telehealth abortion services has made her a focal point in the ongoing national conflict over abortion access. Notably, she also faces a separate indictment in Louisiana, another state with near-total abortion bans, for allegedly mailing abortion pills to a patient there.
The legal battle between Texas and New York officials reflects broader tensions over state sovereignty and the reach of abortion laws across state lines. New York officials, including Bruck, have expressed concerns that Texas’s enforcement attempts may be a precursor to a federal lawsuit challenging the Shield Law itself. Such a case could escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially threatening the protections afforded by shield laws nationwide.
Meanwhile, Texas continues to push its anti-abortion agenda. On July 9, 2025, Governor Greg Abbott added “Protect Unborn Children” to the agenda for a special legislative session, signaling the potential introduction of new abortion restrictions. By July 28, eight anti-abortion bills had been filed in the Texas House. These proposals include allowing parents of aborted fetuses to sue abortion pill providers, creating a special prosecutor to enforce abortion laws, banning remote prescription of abortion-inducing drugs, restricting transportation funding for minors seeking abortions, prohibiting online sales of abortion drugs, and recognizing unborn children as full citizens in certain felony cases. None of these bills had yet been assigned to committees.
This ongoing conflict exemplifies the increasingly complex legal and political landscape surrounding abortion in the United States. It raises critical questions about the limits of state power, the protection of reproductive rights, and the future of telehealth services in politically divided times. As this case proceeds, it will likely set important precedents for how states navigate conflicting abortion laws and protect—or prosecute—those providing reproductive health care across state borders.
