On Wednesday, September 3rd, Texas lawmakers approved a bill that would allow private citizens to sue abortion pill manufacturers, doctors, and suppliers. House Bill 7 is likely to be signed into law by anti-abortion Governor Greg Abbot, making Texas the first state in the nation to go after the most common and accessible abortion method.
Texas already has one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country, prohibiting the procedure even in cases of rape or incest – a ban which has been accompanied by a 56% increase in maternal mortality and delays in care which have contributed to more dangerous miscarriages. The new law would make it incredibly difficult and risky for people in Texas to access abortion, as it empowers Texas residents to sue those who provide abortion pills to anyone in the state for up to $100,000. Although only those directly ‘injured’ by the abortion, such as the biological father, pregnant woman, and close relatives, are eligible for the whole amount, nearly anyone can sue and receive $10,000, with the rest going to charity.
Over a year after the Supreme Court ruling on Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA upheld access to abortion pills through telemedicine and pharmacies, this bill becoming law would be a major victory for anti-abortion advocates who have been attempting to crack down on medication abortion. Abortion pills have been used in the vast majority of abortions across the country, which has enabled the increase in abortion rates post-Dobbs. Medication abortion involves taking two pills, mifepristone and misoprostol, in succession, and has been approved by the FDA to end pregnancies through 10 weeks gestation. Unlike what misinformation campaigns against abortion pills have claimed, this method has proven to be safe and highly effective, with a meta-analysis of 87 clinical trials showing serious complications in less than 0.3% of patients and ongoing pregnancy in just 1.1% of patients.
In a country where the administration feels comfortable openly minimizing domestic violence as a crime, and where homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant women, laws like this, which encourage the public to participate in a form of vigilantism against someone for their private medical decisions, poses an enormous safety risk for women during a time when they are especially vulnerable. The bill text includes a statute establishing that “any person who impregnated a woman through conduct constituting sexual assault” is not eligible to sue. However, almost 98% of perpetrators of sexual violence are never held legally accountable, leading to questions about what basis will be used to determine whether or not a potential abuser can use this law to their advantage. And while the bill also has provisions that bar publicizing the identity or details about the women involved, the basic meaning of the law encourages violations of privacy. Not to mention, the concept of regular citizens enforcing civil laws through a bounty hunting scheme has a deeply racist history in this country. As we see an increase in white supremacist incidents and worsening race relations, it is not a reach to say that such a law could also be misused with racist intentions.
This law is also threatening shield laws, which have been critical tools that states with abortion access have used to protect their providers and patients as cross-state travel to receive abortion care has increased drastically since Dobbs. While legislators in abortion access states are strengthening their shield laws, attorneys general in states with abortion restrictions are banding together to attack them. The most high-profile case so far has been the Texas Attorney General’s lawsuit against a doctor in New York – and the court official who used New York’s shield laws to protect her – which New York Attorney General Letitita James recently announced she would be intervening in. This is an escalating battle that is playing out both on the legislative front and in the courts, setting the stage for a legal showdown that is likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court.
Texas lawmakers’ approval of HB7 marks an unprecedented expansion of the state’s abortion restrictions into a tool of public enforcement, threatening the privacy, safety, and autonomy of pregnant women who already face a hostile reproductive healthcare environment. There are also serious concerns about the misuse of this law due to the realities of sexual violence prosecution and social polarization in this country right now. The bill’s out-of-state reach is also adding fuel to the fire of an interstate legal conflict that could determine the future of medication abortion access and the rights of those who depend on it across the United States.