This story was originally reported by Shefali Luthra of The 19th. Meet Shefali and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.
Texas’ massive new abortion law, which takes effect this week, could intensify the national fight over abortion pills.
House Bill 7 represents the most ambitious effort by abortion opponents to end telehealth abortions, which have helped patients circumvent strict bans in Texas and other states after the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The law, which takes effect Dec. 4, creates civil penalties for health care providers who make abortion medications available in Texas, allowing any private citizen to sue medical providers for a minimum fine of $100,000. Supporters of the bill said it would also allow lawsuits against drug makers. This would not make it possible to prosecute people who have abortions.
HB 7 closely resembles a 2021 Texas law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – the majority of abortions – months before Roe v. Wade. This law was the first to use private civil lawsuits to stop most abortions.
Although the law has prevented abortion providers from operating in the state, no lawsuits have been successful against health care providers. This reality, coupled with the rise of blue state laws to protect health care providers, has left many who offer telehealth skeptical that Texas’ new law will reach them immediately.
“We believe that this is exactly what the Massachusetts shield law is supposed to protect us from: civil penalties related to the provision of legally protected reproductive health care, and that is what we are doing,” Foster said. “I’m not naive in thinking that there could easily be lawsuits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling this. It takes energy to ignore something. But we are not changing anything in our practice and do not anticipate any change in our practice with respect to HB 7.”
“This will give us information about what this is going to look like and how it will play out in court,” said Dr. Angel Foster, founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project, a leading telehealth practice. “And again, this will be an opportunity for us to see the shield laws in action.”
HB 7 closely resembles a 2021 Texas law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – the majority of abortions – months before Roe v. Wade. This law was the first to use private civil lawsuits to stop most abortions.
Although the law has prevented abortion providers from operating in the state, no lawsuits have been successful against health care providers. This reality, coupled with the rise of blue state laws to protect health care providers, has left many who offer telehealth skeptical that Texas’ new law will reach them immediately.
“We believe that this is exactly what the Massachusetts shield law is supposed to protect us from: civil penalties related to the provision of legally protected reproductive health care, and that is what we are doing,” Foster said. “I’m not naive in thinking that there could easily be lawsuits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling this. It takes energy to ignore something. But we are not changing anything in our practice and do not anticipate any change in our practice with respect to HB 7.”
Health care providers are watching this case closely, with some saying it could provide key insights into whether and how the new law could affect their risk.
“This will give us information about what this is going to look like and how it will play out in court,” said Dr. Angel Foster, founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project, a leading telehealth practice. “And again, this will be an opportunity for us to see the shield laws in action.”
HB 7 closely resembles a 2021 Texas law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – the majority of abortions – months before Roe v. Wade. This law was the first to use private civil lawsuits to stop most abortions.
Although the law has prevented abortion providers from operating in the state, no lawsuits have been successful against health care providers. This reality, coupled with the rise of blue state laws to protect health care providers, has left many who offer telehealth skeptical that Texas’ new law will reach them immediately.
“We believe that this is exactly what the Massachusetts shield law is supposed to protect us from: civil penalties related to the provision of legally protected reproductive health care, and that is what we are doing,” Foster said. “I’m not naive in thinking that there could easily be lawsuits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling this. It takes energy to ignore something. But we are not changing anything in our practice and do not anticipate any change in our practice with respect to HB 7.”
The new law could strengthen Texas’ case against telehealth. Mitchell has indicated in court documents that he intends to amend at least one civil case — a wrongful death filed against California-based Dr. Remy Coeytaux — after the law takes effect. He did not respond to an interview request.
Health care providers are watching this case closely, with some saying it could provide key insights into whether and how the new law could affect their risk.
“This will give us information about what this is going to look like and how it will play out in court,” said Dr. Angel Foster, founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project, a leading telehealth practice. “And again, this will be an opportunity for us to see the shield laws in action.”
HB 7 closely resembles a 2021 Texas law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – the majority of abortions – months before Roe v. Wade. This law was the first to use private civil lawsuits to stop most abortions.
Although the law has prevented abortion providers from operating in the state, no lawsuits have been successful against health care providers. This reality, coupled with the rise of blue state laws to protect health care providers, has left many who offer telehealth skeptical that Texas’ new law will reach them immediately.
“We believe that this is exactly what the Massachusetts shield law is supposed to protect us from: civil penalties related to the provision of legally protected reproductive health care, and that is what we are doing,” Foster said. “I’m not naive in thinking that there could easily be lawsuits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling this. It takes energy to ignore something. But we are not changing anything in our practice and do not anticipate any change in our practice with respect to HB 7.”
Already, medical professionals who send abortion pills to Texans have been sued. State Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed charges against New York doctor Margaret Carpenter for sending abortion pills to the state. (In New York, state officials cited the shield law in refusing to enforce a Texas court’s ruling that fined Carpenter $113,000.) Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent lawyer who helped craft many of the state’s anti-abortion laws, has filed wrongful death lawsuits — typically used to sue someone for a death caused by negligence or recklessness — against several telehealth providers, arguing that a abortion is the death of a person. These cases are still pending before the courts.
The new law could strengthen Texas’ case against telehealth. Mitchell has indicated in court documents that he intends to amend at least one civil case — a wrongful death filed against California-based Dr. Remy Coeytaux — after the law takes effect. He did not respond to an interview request.
Health care providers are watching this case closely, with some saying it could provide key insights into whether and how the new law could affect their risk.
“This will give us information about what this is going to look like and how it will play out in court,” said Dr. Angel Foster, founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project, a leading telehealth practice. “And again, this will be an opportunity for us to see the shield laws in action.”
HB 7 closely resembles a 2021 Texas law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – the majority of abortions – months before Roe v. Wade. This law was the first to use private civil lawsuits to stop most abortions.
Although the law has prevented abortion providers from operating in the state, no lawsuits have been successful against health care providers. This reality, coupled with the rise of blue state laws to protect health care providers, has left many who offer telehealth skeptical that Texas’ new law will reach them immediately.
“We believe that this is exactly what the Massachusetts shield law is supposed to protect us from: civil penalties related to the provision of legally protected reproductive health care, and that is what we are doing,” Foster said. “I’m not naive in thinking that there could easily be lawsuits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling this. It takes energy to ignore something. But we are not changing anything in our practice and do not anticipate any change in our practice with respect to HB 7.”
“These contacts have the potential to come into contact with someone who ordered these pills, or these pills were given to them, and they would have first-hand experience with how the pills got to Texas,” Seago said. “Those are the type of people we need to partner with to bring these lawsuits as effectively as possible. We’re definitely building that network.”
Already, medical professionals who send abortion pills to Texans have been sued. State Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed charges against New York doctor Margaret Carpenter for sending abortion pills to the state. (In New York, state officials cited the shield law in refusing to enforce a Texas court’s ruling that fined Carpenter $113,000.) Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent lawyer who helped craft many of the state’s anti-abortion laws, has filed wrongful death lawsuits — typically used to sue someone for a death caused by negligence or recklessness — against several telehealth providers, arguing that a abortion is the death of a person. These cases are still pending before the courts.
The new law could strengthen Texas’ case against telehealth. Mitchell has indicated in court documents that he intends to amend at least one civil case — a wrongful death filed against California-based Dr. Remy Coeytaux — after the law takes effect. He did not respond to an interview request.
Health care providers are watching this case closely, with some saying it could provide key insights into whether and how the new law could affect their risk.
“This will give us information about what this is going to look like and how it will play out in court,” said Dr. Angel Foster, founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project, a leading telehealth practice. “And again, this will be an opportunity for us to see the shield laws in action.”
HB 7 closely resembles a 2021 Texas law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – the majority of abortions – months before Roe v. Wade. This law was the first to use private civil lawsuits to stop most abortions.
Although the law has prevented abortion providers from operating in the state, no lawsuits have been successful against health care providers. This reality, coupled with the rise of blue state laws to protect health care providers, has left many who offer telehealth skeptical that Texas’ new law will reach them immediately.
“We believe that this is exactly what the Massachusetts shield law is supposed to protect us from: civil penalties related to the provision of legally protected reproductive health care, and that is what we are doing,” Foster said. “I’m not naive in thinking that there could easily be lawsuits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling this. It takes energy to ignore something. But we are not changing anything in our practice and do not anticipate any change in our practice with respect to HB 7.”
That involved meeting with abortion opponents across the state, including those who run anti-abortion centers, organizations that resemble medical clinics but discourage people from terminating their pregnancies. Many also market services such as “post-abortion counseling.” These offers can connect them with people who have used telehealth for an abortion and who could be sources of potential lawsuits — especially given the lack of dedicated reproductive health facilities in the state. Anti-abortion centers have been a key source of support for HB 7.
“These contacts have the potential to come into contact with someone who ordered these pills, or these pills were given to them, and they would have first-hand experience with how the pills got to Texas,” Seago said. “Those are the type of people we need to partner with to bring these lawsuits as effectively as possible. We’re definitely building that network.”
Already, medical professionals who send abortion pills to Texans have been sued. State Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed charges against New York doctor Margaret Carpenter for sending abortion pills to the state. (In New York, state officials cited the shield law in refusing to enforce a Texas court’s ruling that fined Carpenter $113,000.) Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent lawyer who helped craft many of the state’s anti-abortion laws, has filed wrongful death lawsuits — typically used to sue someone for a death caused by negligence or recklessness — against several telehealth providers, arguing that a abortion is the death of a person. These cases are still pending before the courts.
The new law could strengthen Texas’ case against telehealth. Mitchell has indicated in court documents that he intends to amend at least one civil case — a wrongful death filed against California-based Dr. Remy Coeytaux — after the law takes effect. He did not respond to an interview request.
Health care providers are watching this case closely, with some saying it could provide key insights into whether and how the new law could affect their risk.
“This will give us information about what this is going to look like and how it will play out in court,” said Dr. Angel Foster, founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project, a leading telehealth practice. “And again, this will be an opportunity for us to see the shield laws in action.”
HB 7 closely resembles a 2021 Texas law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – the majority of abortions – months before Roe v. Wade. This law was the first to use private civil lawsuits to stop most abortions.
Although the law has prevented abortion providers from operating in the state, no lawsuits have been successful against health care providers. This reality, coupled with the rise of blue state laws to protect health care providers, has left many who offer telehealth skeptical that Texas’ new law will reach them immediately.
“We believe that this is exactly what the Massachusetts shield law is supposed to protect us from: civil penalties related to the provision of legally protected reproductive health care, and that is what we are doing,” Foster said. “I’m not naive in thinking that there could easily be lawsuits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling this. It takes energy to ignore something. But we are not changing anything in our practice and do not anticipate any change in our practice with respect to HB 7.”
“We’re building partnerships, educating our friends and other Texans about what the law is and what would be needed — and putting together a team if we actually have to file one of these lawsuits at the end of the year,” said John Seago, head of the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life, which played a leading role in pushing through HB 7.
That involved meeting with abortion opponents across the state, including those who run anti-abortion centers, organizations that resemble medical clinics but discourage people from terminating their pregnancies. Many also market services such as “post-abortion counseling.” These offers can connect them with people who have used telehealth for an abortion and who could be sources of potential lawsuits — especially given the lack of dedicated reproductive health facilities in the state. Anti-abortion centers have been a key source of support for HB 7.
“These contacts have the potential to come into contact with someone who ordered these pills, or these pills were given to them, and they would have first-hand experience with how the pills got to Texas,” Seago said. “Those are the type of people we need to partner with to bring these lawsuits as effectively as possible. We’re definitely building that network.”
Already, medical professionals who send abortion pills to Texans have been sued. State Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed charges against New York doctor Margaret Carpenter for sending abortion pills to the state. (In New York, state officials cited the shield law in refusing to enforce a Texas court’s ruling that fined Carpenter $113,000.) Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent lawyer who helped craft many of the state’s anti-abortion laws, has filed wrongful death lawsuits — typically used to sue someone for a death caused by negligence or recklessness — against several telehealth providers, arguing that a abortion is the death of a person. These cases are still pending before the courts.
The new law could strengthen Texas’ case against telehealth. Mitchell has indicated in court documents that he intends to amend at least one civil case — a wrongful death filed against California-based Dr. Remy Coeytaux — after the law takes effect. He did not respond to an interview request.
Health care providers are watching this case closely, with some saying it could provide key insights into whether and how the new law could affect their risk.
“This will give us information about what this is going to look like and how it will play out in court,” said Dr. Angel Foster, founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project, a leading telehealth practice. “And again, this will be an opportunity for us to see the shield laws in action.”
HB 7 closely resembles a 2021 Texas law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – the majority of abortions – months before Roe v. Wade. This law was the first to use private civil lawsuits to stop most abortions.
Although the law has prevented abortion providers from operating in the state, no lawsuits have been successful against health care providers. This reality, coupled with the rise of blue state laws to protect health care providers, has left many who offer telehealth skeptical that Texas’ new law will reach them immediately.
“We believe that this is exactly what the Massachusetts shield law is supposed to protect us from: civil penalties related to the provision of legally protected reproductive health care, and that is what we are doing,” Foster said. “I’m not naive in thinking that there could easily be lawsuits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling this. It takes energy to ignore something. But we are not changing anything in our practice and do not anticipate any change in our practice with respect to HB 7.”
The popularity of this method has made telehealth a prime target for abortion opponents. No states have actually stopped the provision of telehealth abortions in banned states, but the implementation of HB 7 introduces a new tool that anti-abortion activists can exploit.
“We’re building partnerships, educating our friends and other Texans about what the law is and what would be needed — and putting together a team if we actually have to file one of these lawsuits at the end of the year,” said John Seago, head of the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life, which played a leading role in pushing through HB 7.
That involved meeting with abortion opponents across the state, including those who run anti-abortion centers, organizations that resemble medical clinics but discourage people from terminating their pregnancies. Many also market services such as “post-abortion counseling.” These offers can connect them with people who have used telehealth for an abortion and who could be sources of potential lawsuits — especially given the lack of dedicated reproductive health facilities in the state. Anti-abortion centers have been a key source of support for HB 7.
“These contacts have the potential to come into contact with someone who ordered these pills, or these pills were given to them, and they would have first-hand experience with how the pills got to Texas,” Seago said. “Those are the type of people we need to partner with to bring these lawsuits as effectively as possible. We’re definitely building that network.”
Already, medical professionals who send abortion pills to Texans have been sued. State Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed charges against New York doctor Margaret Carpenter for sending abortion pills to the state. (In New York, state officials cited the shield law in refusing to enforce a Texas court’s ruling that fined Carpenter $113,000.) Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent lawyer who helped craft many of the state’s anti-abortion laws, has filed wrongful death lawsuits — typically used to sue someone for a death caused by negligence or recklessness — against several telehealth providers, arguing that a abortion is the death of a person. These cases are still pending before the courts.
The new law could strengthen Texas’ case against telehealth. Mitchell has indicated in court documents that he intends to amend at least one civil case — a wrongful death filed against California-based Dr. Remy Coeytaux — after the law takes effect. He did not respond to an interview request.
Health care providers are watching this case closely, with some saying it could provide key insights into whether and how the new law could affect their risk.
“This will give us information about what this is going to look like and how it will play out in court,” said Dr. Angel Foster, founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project, a leading telehealth practice. “And again, this will be an opportunity for us to see the shield laws in action.”
HB 7 closely resembles a 2021 Texas law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – the majority of abortions – months before Roe v. Wade. This law was the first to use private civil lawsuits to stop most abortions.
Although the law has prevented abortion providers from operating in the state, no lawsuits have been successful against health care providers. This reality, coupled with the rise of blue state laws to protect health care providers, has left many who offer telehealth skeptical that Texas’ new law will reach them immediately.
“We believe that this is exactly what the Massachusetts shield law is supposed to protect us from: civil penalties related to the provision of legally protected reproductive health care, and that is what we are doing,” Foster said. “I’m not naive in thinking that there could easily be lawsuits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling this. It takes energy to ignore something. But we are not changing anything in our practice and do not anticipate any change in our practice with respect to HB 7.”
Under these laws, medical professionals living in states where abortion is legal have continued to mail medications that patients can use to end their pregnancies at home — a well-studied and effective method with rare complications. Research suggests that one in four abortions are now performed via telehealth, with about half in states with bans or restrictions.
The popularity of this method has made telehealth a prime target for abortion opponents. No states have actually stopped the provision of telehealth abortions in banned states, but the implementation of HB 7 introduces a new tool that anti-abortion activists can exploit.
“We’re building partnerships, educating our friends and other Texans about what the law is and what would be needed — and putting together a team if we actually have to file one of these lawsuits at the end of the year,” said John Seago, head of the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life, which played a leading role in pushing through HB 7.
That involved meeting with abortion opponents across the state, including those who run anti-abortion centers, organizations that resemble medical clinics but discourage people from terminating their pregnancies. Many also market services such as “post-abortion counseling.” These offers can connect them with people who have used telehealth for an abortion and who could be sources of potential lawsuits — especially given the lack of dedicated reproductive health facilities in the state. Anti-abortion centers have been a key source of support for HB 7.
“These contacts have the potential to come into contact with someone who ordered these pills, or these pills were given to them, and they would have first-hand experience with how the pills got to Texas,” Seago said. “Those are the type of people we need to partner with to bring these lawsuits as effectively as possible. We’re definitely building that network.”
Already, medical professionals who send abortion pills to Texans have been sued. State Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed charges against New York doctor Margaret Carpenter for sending abortion pills to the state. (In New York, state officials cited the shield law in refusing to enforce a Texas court’s ruling that fined Carpenter $113,000.) Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent lawyer who helped craft many of the state’s anti-abortion laws, has filed wrongful death lawsuits — typically used to sue someone for a death caused by negligence or recklessness — against several telehealth providers, arguing that a abortion is the death of a person. These cases are still pending before the courts.
The new law could strengthen Texas’ case against telehealth. Mitchell has indicated in court documents that he intends to amend at least one civil case — a wrongful death filed against California-based Dr. Remy Coeytaux — after the law takes effect. He did not respond to an interview request.
Health care providers are watching this case closely, with some saying it could provide key insights into whether and how the new law could affect their risk.
“This will give us information about what this is going to look like and how it will play out in court,” said Dr. Angel Foster, founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project, a leading telehealth practice. “And again, this will be an opportunity for us to see the shield laws in action.”
HB 7 closely resembles a 2021 Texas law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – the majority of abortions – months before Roe v. Wade. This law was the first to use private civil lawsuits to stop most abortions.
Although the law has prevented abortion providers from operating in the state, no lawsuits have been successful against health care providers. This reality, coupled with the rise of blue state laws to protect health care providers, has left many who offer telehealth skeptical that Texas’ new law will reach them immediately.
“We believe that this is exactly what the Massachusetts shield law is supposed to protect us from: civil penalties related to the provision of legally protected reproductive health care, and that is what we are doing,” Foster said. “I’m not naive in thinking that there could easily be lawsuits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling this. It takes energy to ignore something. But we are not changing anything in our practice and do not anticipate any change in our practice with respect to HB 7.”
The problem lies in the conflict between each state’s restrictions on abortion and laws in other states that protect abortion providers from out-of-state lawsuits. These laws stipulate that state governments will not comply with extraterritorial efforts to punish health care providers who provide legal services in the state where they reside, including abortions. Nearly half of all states have some form of protective law, although only eight explicitly protect providers regardless of where the patient is located.
Under these laws, medical professionals living in states where abortion is legal have continued to mail medications that patients can use to end their pregnancies at home — a well-studied and effective method with rare complications. Research suggests that one in four abortions are now performed via telehealth, with about half in states with bans or restrictions.
The popularity of this method has made telehealth a prime target for abortion opponents. No states have actually stopped the provision of telehealth abortions in banned states, but the implementation of HB 7 introduces a new tool that anti-abortion activists can exploit.
“We’re building partnerships, educating our friends and other Texans about what the law is and what would be needed — and putting together a team if we actually have to file one of these lawsuits at the end of the year,” said John Seago, head of the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life, which played a leading role in pushing through HB 7.
That involved meeting with abortion opponents across the state, including those who run anti-abortion centers, organizations that resemble medical clinics but discourage people from terminating their pregnancies. Many also market services such as “post-abortion counseling.” These offers can connect them with people who have used telehealth for an abortion and who could be sources of potential lawsuits — especially given the lack of dedicated reproductive health facilities in the state. Anti-abortion centers have been a key source of support for HB 7.
“These contacts have the potential to come into contact with someone who ordered these pills, or these pills were given to them, and they would have first-hand experience with how the pills got to Texas,” Seago said. “Those are the type of people we need to partner with to bring these lawsuits as effectively as possible. We’re definitely building that network.”
Already, medical professionals who send abortion pills to Texans have been sued. State Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed charges against New York doctor Margaret Carpenter for sending abortion pills to the state. (In New York, state officials cited the shield law in refusing to enforce a Texas court’s ruling that fined Carpenter $113,000.) Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent lawyer who helped craft many of the state’s anti-abortion laws, has filed wrongful death lawsuits — typically used to sue someone for a death caused by negligence or recklessness — against several telehealth providers, arguing that a abortion is the death of a person. These cases are still pending before the courts.
The new law could strengthen Texas’ case against telehealth. Mitchell has indicated in court documents that he intends to amend at least one civil case — a wrongful death filed against California-based Dr. Remy Coeytaux — after the law takes effect. He did not respond to an interview request.
Health care providers are watching this case closely, with some saying it could provide key insights into whether and how the new law could affect their risk.
“This will give us information about what this is going to look like and how it will play out in court,” said Dr. Angel Foster, founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project, a leading telehealth practice. “And again, this will be an opportunity for us to see the shield laws in action.”
HB 7 closely resembles a 2021 Texas law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – the majority of abortions – months before Roe v. Wade. This law was the first to use private civil lawsuits to stop most abortions.
Although the law has prevented abortion providers from operating in the state, no lawsuits have been successful against health care providers. This reality, coupled with the rise of blue state laws to protect health care providers, has left many who offer telehealth skeptical that Texas’ new law will reach them immediately.
“We believe that this is exactly what the Massachusetts shield law is supposed to protect us from: civil penalties related to the provision of legally protected reproductive health care, and that is what we are doing,” Foster said. “I’m not naive in thinking that there could easily be lawsuits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling this. It takes energy to ignore something. But we are not changing anything in our practice and do not anticipate any change in our practice with respect to HB 7.”
However, anti-abortion activists who have defended the law say they are considering civil lawsuits against health care providers who continue to mail drugs to Texas. These private lawsuits could accelerate a conflict between state abortion laws that would need to be resolved by the conservative U.S. Supreme Court.
The problem lies in the conflict between each state’s restrictions on abortion and laws in other states that protect abortion providers from out-of-state lawsuits. These laws stipulate that state governments will not comply with extraterritorial efforts to punish health care providers who provide legal services in the state where they reside, including abortions. Nearly half of all states have some form of protective law, although only eight explicitly protect providers regardless of where the patient is located.
Under these laws, medical professionals living in states where abortion is legal have continued to mail medications that patients can use to end their pregnancies at home — a well-studied and effective method with rare complications. Research suggests that one in four abortions are now performed via telehealth, with about half in states with bans or restrictions.
The popularity of this method has made telehealth a prime target for abortion opponents. No states have actually stopped the provision of telehealth abortions in banned states, but the implementation of HB 7 introduces a new tool that anti-abortion activists can exploit.
“We’re building partnerships, educating our friends and other Texans about what the law is and what would be needed — and putting together a team if we actually have to file one of these lawsuits at the end of the year,” said John Seago, head of the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life, which played a leading role in pushing through HB 7.
That involved meeting with abortion opponents across the state, including those who run anti-abortion centers, organizations that resemble medical clinics but discourage people from terminating their pregnancies. Many also market services such as “post-abortion counseling.” These offers can connect them with people who have used telehealth for an abortion and who could be sources of potential lawsuits — especially given the lack of dedicated reproductive health facilities in the state. Anti-abortion centers have been a key source of support for HB 7.
“These contacts have the potential to come into contact with someone who ordered these pills, or these pills were given to them, and they would have first-hand experience with how the pills got to Texas,” Seago said. “Those are the type of people we need to partner with to bring these lawsuits as effectively as possible. We’re definitely building that network.”
Already, medical professionals who send abortion pills to Texans have been sued. State Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed charges against New York doctor Margaret Carpenter for sending abortion pills to the state. (In New York, state officials cited the shield law in refusing to enforce a Texas court’s ruling that fined Carpenter $113,000.) Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent lawyer who helped craft many of the state’s anti-abortion laws, has filed wrongful death lawsuits — typically used to sue someone for a death caused by negligence or recklessness — against several telehealth providers, arguing that a abortion is the death of a person. These cases are still pending before the courts.
The new law could strengthen Texas’ case against telehealth. Mitchell has indicated in court documents that he intends to amend at least one civil case — a wrongful death filed against California-based Dr. Remy Coeytaux — after the law takes effect. He did not respond to an interview request.
Health care providers are watching this case closely, with some saying it could provide key insights into whether and how the new law could affect their risk.
“This will give us information about what this is going to look like and how it will play out in court,” said Dr. Angel Foster, founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project, a leading telehealth practice. “And again, this will be an opportunity for us to see the shield laws in action.”
HB 7 closely resembles a 2021 Texas law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – the majority of abortions – months before Roe v. Wade. This law was the first to use private civil lawsuits to stop most abortions.
Although the law has prevented abortion providers from operating in the state, no lawsuits have been successful against health care providers. This reality, coupled with the rise of blue state laws to protect health care providers, has left many who offer telehealth skeptical that Texas’ new law will reach them immediately.
“We believe that this is exactly what the Massachusetts shield law is supposed to protect us from: civil penalties related to the provision of legally protected reproductive health care, and that is what we are doing,” Foster said. “I’m not naive in thinking that there could easily be lawsuits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling this. It takes energy to ignore something. But we are not changing anything in our practice and do not anticipate any change in our practice with respect to HB 7.”
The pharmaceutical companies have not said how they would respond. Danco, a leading manufacturer of the abortion drug mifepristone, declined to comment. GenBioPro, which makes a generic version of the drug, also declined to comment.
However, anti-abortion activists who have defended the law say they are considering civil lawsuits against health care providers who continue to mail drugs to Texas. These private lawsuits could accelerate a conflict between state abortion laws that would need to be resolved by the conservative U.S. Supreme Court.
The problem lies in the conflict between each state’s restrictions on abortion and laws in other states that protect abortion providers from out-of-state lawsuits. These laws stipulate that state governments will not comply with extraterritorial efforts to punish health care providers who provide legal services in the state where they reside, including abortions. Nearly half of all states have some form of protective law, although only eight explicitly protect providers regardless of where the patient is located.
Under these laws, medical professionals living in states where abortion is legal have continued to mail medications that patients can use to end their pregnancies at home — a well-studied and effective method with rare complications. Research suggests that one in four abortions are now performed via telehealth, with about half in states with bans or restrictions.
The popularity of this method has made telehealth a prime target for abortion opponents. No states have actually stopped the provision of telehealth abortions in banned states, but the implementation of HB 7 introduces a new tool that anti-abortion activists can exploit.
“We’re building partnerships, educating our friends and other Texans about what the law is and what would be needed — and putting together a team if we actually have to file one of these lawsuits at the end of the year,” said John Seago, head of the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life, which played a leading role in pushing through HB 7.
That involved meeting with abortion opponents across the state, including those who run anti-abortion centers, organizations that resemble medical clinics but discourage people from terminating their pregnancies. Many also market services such as “post-abortion counseling.” These offers can connect them with people who have used telehealth for an abortion and who could be sources of potential lawsuits — especially given the lack of dedicated reproductive health facilities in the state. Anti-abortion centers have been a key source of support for HB 7.
“These contacts have the potential to come into contact with someone who ordered these pills, or these pills were given to them, and they would have first-hand experience with how the pills got to Texas,” Seago said. “Those are the type of people we need to partner with to bring these lawsuits as effectively as possible. We’re definitely building that network.”
Already, medical professionals who send abortion pills to Texans have been sued. State Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed charges against New York doctor Margaret Carpenter for sending abortion pills to the state. (In New York, state officials cited the shield law in refusing to enforce a Texas court’s ruling that fined Carpenter $113,000.) Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent lawyer who helped craft many of the state’s anti-abortion laws, has filed wrongful death lawsuits — typically used to sue someone for a death caused by negligence or recklessness — against several telehealth providers, arguing that a abortion is the death of a person. These cases are still pending before the courts.
The new law could strengthen Texas’ case against telehealth. Mitchell has indicated in court documents that he intends to amend at least one civil case — a wrongful death filed against California-based Dr. Remy Coeytaux — after the law takes effect. He did not respond to an interview request.
Health care providers are watching this case closely, with some saying it could provide key insights into whether and how the new law could affect their risk.
“This will give us information about what this is going to look like and how it will play out in court,” said Dr. Angel Foster, founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project, a leading telehealth practice. “And again, this will be an opportunity for us to see the shield laws in action.”
HB 7 closely resembles a 2021 Texas law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – the majority of abortions – months before Roe v. Wade. This law was the first to use private civil lawsuits to stop most abortions.
Although the law has prevented abortion providers from operating in the state, no lawsuits have been successful against health care providers. This reality, coupled with the rise of blue state laws to protect health care providers, has left many who offer telehealth skeptical that Texas’ new law will reach them immediately.
“We believe that this is exactly what the Massachusetts shield law is supposed to protect us from: civil penalties related to the provision of legally protected reproductive health care, and that is what we are doing,” Foster said. “I’m not naive in thinking that there could easily be lawsuits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling this. It takes energy to ignore something. But we are not changing anything in our practice and do not anticipate any change in our practice with respect to HB 7.”
“If anything, implementing this law makes people more committed to helping Texas people access abortion pills,” Wells said.
The pharmaceutical companies have not said how they would respond. Danco, a leading manufacturer of the abortion drug mifepristone, declined to comment. GenBioPro, which makes a generic version of the drug, also declined to comment.
However, anti-abortion activists who have defended the law say they are considering civil lawsuits against health care providers who continue to mail drugs to Texas. These private lawsuits could accelerate a conflict between state abortion laws that would need to be resolved by the conservative U.S. Supreme Court.
The problem lies in the conflict between each state’s restrictions on abortion and laws in other states that protect abortion providers from out-of-state lawsuits. These laws stipulate that state governments will not comply with extraterritorial efforts to punish health care providers who provide legal services in the state where they reside, including abortions. Nearly half of all states have some form of protective law, although only eight explicitly protect providers regardless of where the patient is located.
Under these laws, medical professionals living in states where abortion is legal have continued to mail medications that patients can use to end their pregnancies at home — a well-studied and effective method with rare complications. Research suggests that one in four abortions are now performed via telehealth, with about half in states with bans or restrictions.
The popularity of this method has made telehealth a prime target for abortion opponents. No states have actually stopped the provision of telehealth abortions in banned states, but the implementation of HB 7 introduces a new tool that anti-abortion activists can exploit.
“We’re building partnerships, educating our friends and other Texans about what the law is and what would be needed — and putting together a team if we actually have to file one of these lawsuits at the end of the year,” said John Seago, head of the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life, which played a leading role in pushing through HB 7.
That involved meeting with abortion opponents across the state, including those who run anti-abortion centers, organizations that resemble medical clinics but discourage people from terminating their pregnancies. Many also market services such as “post-abortion counseling.” These offers can connect them with people who have used telehealth for an abortion and who could be sources of potential lawsuits — especially given the lack of dedicated reproductive health facilities in the state. Anti-abortion centers have been a key source of support for HB 7.
“These contacts have the potential to come into contact with someone who ordered these pills, or these pills were given to them, and they would have first-hand experience with how the pills got to Texas,” Seago said. “Those are the type of people we need to partner with to bring these lawsuits as effectively as possible. We’re definitely building that network.”
Already, medical professionals who send abortion pills to Texans have been sued. State Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed charges against New York doctor Margaret Carpenter for sending abortion pills to the state. (In New York, state officials cited the shield law in refusing to enforce a Texas court’s ruling that fined Carpenter $113,000.) Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent lawyer who helped craft many of the state’s anti-abortion laws, has filed wrongful death lawsuits — typically used to sue someone for a death caused by negligence or recklessness — against several telehealth providers, arguing that a abortion is the death of a person. These cases are still pending before the courts.
The new law could strengthen Texas’ case against telehealth. Mitchell has indicated in court documents that he intends to amend at least one civil case — a wrongful death filed against California-based Dr. Remy Coeytaux — after the law takes effect. He did not respond to an interview request.
Health care providers are watching this case closely, with some saying it could provide key insights into whether and how the new law could affect their risk.
“This will give us information about what this is going to look like and how it will play out in court,” said Dr. Angel Foster, founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project, a leading telehealth practice. “And again, this will be an opportunity for us to see the shield laws in action.”
HB 7 closely resembles a 2021 Texas law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – the majority of abortions – months before Roe v. Wade. This law was the first to use private civil lawsuits to stop most abortions.
Although the law has prevented abortion providers from operating in the state, no lawsuits have been successful against health care providers. This reality, coupled with the rise of blue state laws to protect health care providers, has left many who offer telehealth skeptical that Texas’ new law will reach them immediately.
“We believe that this is exactly what the Massachusetts shield law is supposed to protect us from: civil penalties related to the provision of legally protected reproductive health care, and that is what we are doing,” Foster said. “I’m not naive in thinking that there could easily be lawsuits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling this. It takes energy to ignore something. But we are not changing anything in our practice and do not anticipate any change in our practice with respect to HB 7.”
Medical providers say the law won’t stop them from providing abortions in Texas. Three major telehealth practices have confirmed their plans to continue prescribing and shipping abortion medications to Texas patients, citing laws in other states that would protect them from lawsuits in Texas. Elisa Wells, director of Plan C, which lists abortion options for people across the country, said she hasn’t heard from any providers about plans to stop offering telehealth abortions to Texans.
“If anything, implementing this law makes people more committed to helping Texas people access abortion pills,” Wells said.
The pharmaceutical companies have not said how they would respond. Danco, a leading manufacturer of the abortion drug mifepristone, declined to comment. GenBioPro, which makes a generic version of the drug, also declined to comment.
However, anti-abortion activists who have defended the law say they are considering civil lawsuits against health care providers who continue to mail drugs to Texas. These private lawsuits could accelerate a conflict between state abortion laws that would need to be resolved by the conservative U.S. Supreme Court.
The problem lies in the conflict between each state’s restrictions on abortion and laws in other states that protect abortion providers from out-of-state lawsuits. These laws stipulate that state governments will not comply with extraterritorial efforts to punish health care providers who provide legal services in the state where they reside, including abortions. Nearly half of all states have some form of protective law, although only eight explicitly protect providers regardless of where the patient is located.
Under these laws, medical professionals living in states where abortion is legal have continued to mail medications that patients can use to end their pregnancies at home — a well-studied and effective method with rare complications. Research suggests that one in four abortions are now performed via telehealth, with about half in states with bans or restrictions.
The popularity of this method has made telehealth a prime target for abortion opponents. No states have actually stopped the provision of telehealth abortions in banned states, but the implementation of HB 7 introduces a new tool that anti-abortion activists can exploit.
“We’re building partnerships, educating our friends and other Texans about what the law is and what would be needed — and putting together a team if we actually have to file one of these lawsuits at the end of the year,” said John Seago, head of the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life, which played a leading role in pushing through HB 7.
That involved meeting with abortion opponents across the state, including those who run anti-abortion centers, organizations that resemble medical clinics but discourage people from terminating their pregnancies. Many also market services such as “post-abortion counseling.” These offers can connect them with people who have used telehealth for an abortion and who could be sources of potential lawsuits — especially given the lack of dedicated reproductive health facilities in the state. Anti-abortion centers have been a key source of support for HB 7.
“These contacts have the potential to come into contact with someone who ordered these pills, or these pills were given to them, and they would have first-hand experience with how the pills got to Texas,” Seago said. “Those are the type of people we need to partner with to bring these lawsuits as effectively as possible. We’re definitely building that network.”
Already, medical professionals who send abortion pills to Texans have been sued. State Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed charges against New York doctor Margaret Carpenter for sending abortion pills to the state. (In New York, state officials cited the shield law in refusing to enforce a Texas court’s ruling that fined Carpenter $113,000.) Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent lawyer who helped craft many of the state’s anti-abortion laws, has filed wrongful death lawsuits — typically used to sue someone for a death caused by negligence or recklessness — against several telehealth providers, arguing that a abortion is the death of a person. These cases are still pending before the courts.
The new law could strengthen Texas’ case against telehealth. Mitchell has indicated in court documents that he intends to amend at least one civil case — a wrongful death filed against California-based Dr. Remy Coeytaux — after the law takes effect. He did not respond to an interview request.
Health care providers are watching this case closely, with some saying it could provide key insights into whether and how the new law could affect their risk.
“This will give us information about what this is going to look like and how it will play out in court,” said Dr. Angel Foster, founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project, a leading telehealth practice. “And again, this will be an opportunity for us to see the shield laws in action.”
HB 7 closely resembles a 2021 Texas law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – the majority of abortions – months before Roe v. Wade. This law was the first to use private civil lawsuits to stop most abortions.
Although the law has prevented abortion providers from operating in the state, no lawsuits have been successful against health care providers. This reality, coupled with the rise of blue state laws to protect health care providers, has left many who offer telehealth skeptical that Texas’ new law will reach them immediately.
“We believe that this is exactly what the Massachusetts shield law is supposed to protect us from: civil penalties related to the provision of legally protected reproductive health care, and that is what we are doing,” Foster said. “I’m not naive in thinking that there could easily be lawsuits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling this. It takes energy to ignore something. But we are not changing anything in our practice and do not anticipate any change in our practice with respect to HB 7.”
Although other states have passed laws targeting abortion drugs – for example, classifying them as controlled substances – the Texas law is novel in its approach to targeting the people who distribute them and its reliance on civil suits.
Medical providers say the law won’t stop them from providing abortions in Texas. Three major telehealth practices have confirmed their plans to continue prescribing and shipping abortion medications to Texas patients, citing laws in other states that would protect them from lawsuits in Texas. Elisa Wells, director of Plan C, which lists abortion options for people across the country, said she hasn’t heard from any providers about plans to stop offering telehealth abortions to Texans.
“If anything, implementing this law makes people more committed to helping Texas people access abortion pills,” Wells said.
The pharmaceutical companies have not said how they would respond. Danco, a leading manufacturer of the abortion drug mifepristone, declined to comment. GenBioPro, which makes a generic version of the drug, also declined to comment.
However, anti-abortion activists who have defended the law say they are considering civil lawsuits against health care providers who continue to mail drugs to Texas. These private lawsuits could accelerate a conflict between state abortion laws that would need to be resolved by the conservative U.S. Supreme Court.
The problem lies in the conflict between each state’s restrictions on abortion and laws in other states that protect abortion providers from out-of-state lawsuits. These laws stipulate that state governments will not comply with extraterritorial efforts to punish health care providers who provide legal services in the state where they reside, including abortions. Nearly half of all states have some form of protective law, although only eight explicitly protect providers regardless of where the patient is located.
Under these laws, medical professionals living in states where abortion is legal have continued to mail medications that patients can use to end their pregnancies at home — a well-studied and effective method with rare complications. Research suggests that one in four abortions are now performed via telehealth, with about half in states with bans or restrictions.
The popularity of this method has made telehealth a prime target for abortion opponents. No states have actually stopped the provision of telehealth abortions in banned states, but the implementation of HB 7 introduces a new tool that anti-abortion activists can exploit.
“We’re building partnerships, educating our friends and other Texans about what the law is and what would be needed — and putting together a team if we actually have to file one of these lawsuits at the end of the year,” said John Seago, head of the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life, which played a leading role in pushing through HB 7.
That involved meeting with abortion opponents across the state, including those who run anti-abortion centers, organizations that resemble medical clinics but discourage people from terminating their pregnancies. Many also market services such as “post-abortion counseling.” These offers can connect them with people who have used telehealth for an abortion and who could be sources of potential lawsuits — especially given the lack of dedicated reproductive health facilities in the state. Anti-abortion centers have been a key source of support for HB 7.
“These contacts have the potential to come into contact with someone who ordered these pills, or these pills were given to them, and they would have first-hand experience with how the pills got to Texas,” Seago said. “Those are the type of people we need to partner with to bring these lawsuits as effectively as possible. We’re definitely building that network.”
Already, medical professionals who send abortion pills to Texans have been sued. State Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed charges against New York doctor Margaret Carpenter for sending abortion pills to the state. (In New York, state officials cited the shield law in refusing to enforce a Texas court’s ruling that fined Carpenter $113,000.) Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent lawyer who helped craft many of the state’s anti-abortion laws, has filed wrongful death lawsuits — typically used to sue someone for a death caused by negligence or recklessness — against several telehealth providers, arguing that a abortion is the death of a person. These cases are still pending before the courts.
The new law could strengthen Texas’ case against telehealth. Mitchell has indicated in court documents that he intends to amend at least one civil case — a wrongful death filed against California-based Dr. Remy Coeytaux — after the law takes effect. He did not respond to an interview request.
Health care providers are watching this case closely, with some saying it could provide key insights into whether and how the new law could affect their risk.
“This will give us information about what this is going to look like and how it will play out in court,” said Dr. Angel Foster, founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project, a leading telehealth practice. “And again, this will be an opportunity for us to see the shield laws in action.”
HB 7 closely resembles a 2021 Texas law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – the majority of abortions – months before Roe v. Wade. This law was the first to use private civil lawsuits to stop most abortions.
Although the law has prevented abortion providers from operating in the state, no lawsuits have been successful against health care providers. This reality, coupled with the rise of blue state laws to protect health care providers, has left many who offer telehealth skeptical that Texas’ new law will reach them immediately.
“We believe that this is exactly what the Massachusetts shield law is supposed to protect us from: civil penalties related to the provision of legally protected reproductive health care, and that is what we are doing,” Foster said. “I’m not naive in thinking that there could easily be lawsuits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling this. It takes energy to ignore something. But we are not changing anything in our practice and do not anticipate any change in our practice with respect to HB 7.”
Although other states have passed laws targeting abortion drugs – for example, classifying them as controlled substances – the Texas law is novel in its approach to targeting the people who distribute them and its reliance on civil suits.
Medical providers say the law won’t stop them from providing abortions in Texas. Three major telehealth practices have confirmed their plans to continue prescribing and shipping abortion medications to Texas patients, citing laws in other states that would protect them from lawsuits in Texas. Elisa Wells, director of Plan C, which lists abortion options for people across the country, said she hasn’t heard from any providers about plans to stop offering telehealth abortions to Texans.
“If anything, implementing this law makes people more committed to helping Texas people access abortion pills,” Wells said.
The pharmaceutical companies have not said how they would respond. Danco, a leading manufacturer of the abortion drug mifepristone, declined to comment. GenBioPro, which makes a generic version of the drug, also declined to comment.
However, anti-abortion activists who have defended the law say they are considering civil lawsuits against health care providers who continue to mail drugs to Texas. These private lawsuits could accelerate a conflict between state abortion laws that would need to be resolved by the conservative U.S. Supreme Court.
The problem lies in the conflict between each state’s restrictions on abortion and laws in other states that protect abortion providers from out-of-state lawsuits. These laws stipulate that state governments will not comply with extraterritorial efforts to punish health care providers who provide legal services in the state where they reside, including abortions. Nearly half of all states have some form of protective law, although only eight explicitly protect providers regardless of where the patient is located.
Under these laws, medical professionals living in states where abortion is legal have continued to mail medications that patients can use to end their pregnancies at home — a well-studied and effective method with rare complications. Research suggests that one in four abortions are now performed via telehealth, with about half in states with bans or restrictions.
The popularity of this method has made telehealth a prime target for abortion opponents. No states have actually stopped the provision of telehealth abortions in banned states, but the implementation of HB 7 introduces a new tool that anti-abortion activists can exploit.
“We’re building partnerships, educating our friends and other Texans about what the law is and what would be needed — and putting together a team if we actually have to file one of these lawsuits at the end of the year,” said John Seago, head of the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life, which played a leading role in pushing through HB 7.
That involved meeting with abortion opponents across the state, including those who run anti-abortion centers, organizations that resemble medical clinics but discourage people from terminating their pregnancies. Many also market services such as “post-abortion counseling.” These offers can connect them with people who have used telehealth for an abortion and who could be sources of potential lawsuits — especially given the lack of dedicated reproductive health facilities in the state. Anti-abortion centers have been a key source of support for HB 7.
“These contacts have the potential to come into contact with someone who ordered these pills, or these pills were given to them, and they would have first-hand experience with how the pills got to Texas,” Seago said. “Those are the type of people we need to partner with to bring these lawsuits as effectively as possible. We’re definitely building that network.”
Already, medical professionals who send abortion pills to Texans have been sued. State Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed charges against New York doctor Margaret Carpenter for sending abortion pills to the state. (In New York, state officials cited the shield law in refusing to enforce a Texas court’s ruling that fined Carpenter $113,000.) Jonathan Mitchell, a prominent lawyer who helped craft many of the state’s anti-abortion laws, has filed wrongful death lawsuits — typically used to sue someone for a death caused by negligence or recklessness — against several telehealth providers, arguing that a abortion is the death of a person. These cases are still pending before the courts.
The new law could strengthen Texas’ case against telehealth. Mitchell has indicated in court documents that he intends to amend at least one civil case — a wrongful death filed against California-based Dr. Remy Coeytaux — after the law takes effect. He did not respond to an interview request.
Health care providers are watching this case closely, with some saying it could provide key insights into whether and how the new law could affect their risk.
“This will give us information about what this is going to look like and how it will play out in court,” said Dr. Angel Foster, founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Project, a leading telehealth practice. “And again, this will be an opportunity for us to see the shield laws in action.”
HB 7 closely resembles a 2021 Texas law that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – the majority of abortions – months before Roe v. Wade. This law was the first to use private civil lawsuits to stop most abortions.
Although the law has prevented abortion providers from operating in the state, no lawsuits have been successful against health care providers. This reality, coupled with the rise of blue state laws to protect health care providers, has left many who offer telehealth skeptical that Texas’ new law will reach them immediately.
“We believe that this is exactly what the Massachusetts shield law is supposed to protect us from: civil penalties related to the provision of legally protected reproductive health care, and that is what we are doing,” Foster said. “I’m not naive in thinking that there could easily be lawsuits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling this. It takes energy to ignore something. But we are not changing anything in our practice and do not anticipate any change in our practice with respect to HB 7.”
