Texas is escalating the legal battle over abortion access by suing a New York doctor for allegedly prescribing abortion pills to a Texas resident via telehealth. This move represents a significant challenge to the shield laws enacted by states with legal abortion access, designed to protect healthcare providers from prosecution in states with abortion bans.
Attorney General Ken Paxton initiated the lawsuit in Collin County, Texas, marking one of the first major legal tests of these interstate abortion conflicts since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The lawsuit targets Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter, accusing her of violating Texas law by providing abortion-inducing drugs to a patient within the state.
The rise of telehealth prescriptions for abortion pills has become a critical factor in maintaining abortion access across the U.S., even as numerous states have implemented strict bans following the Supreme Court’s decision. Medication abortions, utilizing pills like mifepristone and misoprostol, now account for the majority of abortions in the country.
Abortion pills like mifepristone and misoprostol are at the center of the legal dispute, highlighting the ongoing debate over medication abortion access.
Legal experts like Mary Ruth Ziegler from the University of California, Davis, School of Law, have anticipated challenges to these shield laws. The core question raised by this lawsuit is whether doctors in states where abortion is legal will be deterred from providing telehealth prescriptions to patients in states with bans, even if shield laws are intended to offer protection. The uncertainty surrounding the legal landscape could have a chilling effect on abortion access nationwide.
Texas law prohibits abortion at all stages of pregnancy and has adopted aggressive measures to enforce this ban. Even before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Texas implemented a law in 2021 allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in providing or assisting with an abortion.
According to Attorney General Paxton, the lawsuit was prompted by a case involving a 20-year-old Texas woman who received a telehealth abortion pill prescription from Dr. Carpenter and subsequently experienced complications requiring hospitalization. The state alleges that it was only after these complications that the “biological father of the unborn child” became aware of the pregnancy and the abortion.
Paxton stated, “In Texas, we treasure the health and lives of mothers and babies, and this is why out-of-state doctors may not illegally and dangerously prescribe abortion-inducing drugs to Texas residents.” The lawsuit seeks financial penalties of up to $250,000 from Dr. Carpenter.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, pictured here, has initiated the lawsuit against the New York doctor, underscoring the state's firm stance on abortion restrictions.
Dr. Carpenter, who is also co-medical director and founder of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, has not yet issued a public response to the lawsuit. However, New York Attorney General Letitia James has pledged to defend providers in her state, asserting that “Abortion is, and will continue to be, legal and protected in New York.” She emphasized New York’s commitment to being a safe haven for abortion access, contrasting it with states seeking to restrict abortion care.
Anti-abortion groups, emboldened by the current political climate and the conservative majority in the Supreme Court, are actively exploring further restrictions on abortion pill access. Despite a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that rejected a challenge to mifepristone access based on standing, Republican state attorneys general are continuing to push for tighter regulations, including limitations on telehealth prescriptions.
Louisiana has already taken steps to reclassify abortion pills as “controlled dangerous substances,” adding further hurdles to access. Legislators in other states are also considering similar measures to restrict or ban abortion pills in the upcoming year.
Tennessee State Representative Gino Bulso, who is sponsoring legislation to restrict abortion pills, explained his rationale: “I began to think about how we might be able to both provide an additional deterrent to companies violating the criminal law and provide a remedy for the family of the unborn children.”
This lawsuit from Texas signals an intensification of the legal and political struggle surrounding abortion access in the United States, particularly concerning telehealth and interstate healthcare provision. It underscores the growing conflict between states with differing abortion laws and the uncertain future of medication abortion access nationwide.
