Amy O’Donell

Executive Director

Texas Alliance for Life  |  15 December 2025

In a landmark move to reinforce its commitment to protecting unborn life and women's health, Texas has enacted the Woman and Child Protection Act, or HB7. This law empowers private citizens to sue those involved in mailing or providing chemical abortion pills into Texas. Signed by Governor Greg Abbott in September 2025, this legislation took effect on December 4, 2025. This legislation addresses a critical loophole in the post-Roe v. Wade era, where out-of-state providers flood Texas with dangerous medications, circumventing the state's near-total abortion ban.[1]

​

Chemical abortion pills, mifepristone and misoprostol, are used to terminate pregnancies in the early stages. While these medications are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under specific guidelines, their growing availability through mail-order services raises significant concerns among Texas lawmakers. The central argument supporting our ban is rooted in the desire to protect women from potential health risks, prevent circumvention of state law, and affirm the state’s commitment to protecting unborn life.

Governor Greg Abbott, a strong supporter of the law, has stated, “Texas will always fight for the sanctity of life. By banning abortion-inducing drugs sent through the mail, we are taking a stand for mothers and their unborn children.”[2]  Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick echoed this sentiment upon the Senate's passage: "The Texas Senate is committed to protecting the unborn. Today, we passed HB 7 to make sure abortion-inducing drugs cannot be distributed in Texas for the purpose of carrying out an unlawful abortion. Once enacted, this bill will protect the lives of thousands of Texas children."

 

By allowing civil enforcement through lawsuits with substantial damages—up to $100,000 per violation, HB7 is meant to deter illegal distribution of abortion inducing drugs, ensuring external actors do not undermine Texas' pro-life policies.[3]

 

Since the 2022 Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, Texas has led the nation in safeguarding life from conception. Our Human Life Protection Act prohibits abortions except when necessary to protect a mother’s life or health, and ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage care are not considered abortions in Texas law.[4]  Chemical abortions, accounting for over half of all U.S. abortions, pose a new challenge. Medications like mifepristone and misoprostol, often mailed from states with lax regulations or from overseas, have enabled thousands of Texans to access abortions at home, evading clinic-based restrictions.[5]

 

Estimates suggest 20,000 to 30,000 pills enter Texas annually, turning mailboxes into de facto abortion facilities.[6]  HB7 directly confronts this by targeting manufacturers, distributors, prescribers, and even accomplices who facilitate these shipments, while explicitly exempting pregnant women from liability.[7]

 

At its core, HB7 is about protecting the most vulnerable: the unborn. Pro-life advocates have long argued that life begins at conception, and these pills represent a direct assault on that principle. The drugs work by starving the embryo of nutrients and then inducing contractions to expel the child, often at home, far from medical oversight.[8]  Supporters emphasized that HB7 is a strong tool to halt this practice, saving countless lives by disrupting the supply chain.[9]  

​

Representative Jeff Leach, the bill's author, has described the pills as "deadly for the unborn child," underscoring the moral imperative to act.[10]

 

Texas voters and lawmakers have repeatedly affirmed pro-life values through elections and legislation; allowing out-of-state entities to flout these laws undermines democracy itself.  Empowering citizens to enforce the ban, HB7 adds another layer of accountability, ensuring that every life has a fighting chance.  Beyond the ethical dimension, the law prioritizes women's health and safety, a cornerstone of the mainstream pro-life movement.  Chemical abortions, while marketed as "safe and easy," carry significant risks, especially when self-administered.  Complications can include severe bleeding, incomplete abortion requiring surgical intervention, infection, loss of future fertility, and even sepsis—risks that escalate in rural Texas areas with limited access to emergency care.[11]

​

The FDA has documented thousands of adverse events related to mifepristone, including hospitalizations and deaths. Yet, relaxed regulations under the Biden administration made these pills more accessible via mail without in-person consultations.[12]  

​

HB7 counters this by deterring providers who prioritize profit over patient well-being. As Leach noted, these pills are "dangerous for the mother," potentially leaving women to face life-threatening situations alone.[13]  Moreover, the law includes robust privacy protections, shielding women's health information and preventing exploitation in lawsuits.[14]  

​

This compassionate approach—exempting women while targeting enablers—reflects a nuanced understanding that many seek abortions under duress, coercion, or misinformation.  Instead of punishing the vulnerable, as some so-called “pro-lifers” advocate, HB7 redirects focus to those profiting from their plight, encouraging alternatives like adoption, pregnancy centers, and support services that Texas has expanded in recent years. 

Critics often mischaracterize HB7 as an overreach, but its enforcement mechanism is a proven, innovative solution tailored to federalism's challenges. Modeled after the 2021 Texas Heartbeat Act (SB8), which successfully reduced in-state abortions by creating a "chilling effect" on providers, HB7 uses private civil actions to sidestep direct state involvement.[15]  

​

This qui tam model—where citizens act as whistleblowers—awards damages of at least $10,000 (with higher amounts for relatives of the unborn), but only after proving violations in court.[16]  It avoids entangling prosecutors or agencies, minimizing constitutional challenges while maximizing deterrence.  N

egotiated revisions barred abusers or criminals from suing, further refining the bill to prevent misuse.[17]  

This isn't vigilantism; it's citizen empowerment in a republic where states hold primary authority over health and morals. 

​

Furthermore, HB7 upholds Texas' sovereignty in an era of interstate conflict over abortion. Shield laws in blue states like New York and California attempt to harbor providers from Texas subpoenas, but HB7 asserts that no external jurisdiction can nullify Texas statutes.[18]  Attorney General Ken Paxton's prior suits against out-of-state doctors highlight the need for stronger tools.[19]  By challenging these shields, the law reaffirms federalism: Texas respects other states' choices but demands reciprocity in not interfering with its own. This is especially vital as national debates rage over the Comstock Act, a federal law potentially restricting abortion mailings nationwide.[20] 

​

Supporters argue that without HB7, Texas' ban becomes toothless, allowing a shadow industry of drug pushers to thrive and erode public trust in the rule of law.

​

Of course, opponents decry the law as a "bounty hunter" scheme that invades privacy or incentivizes frivolous suits.[21]  These claims overlook the bill's safeguards: lawsuits require evidence, identities are protected, and exemptions abound for legitimate medical uses.[22]  

​

Moreover, the "chilling effect" is precisely the point—deterring illegal activity before it harms lives.  Data from SB8 shows abortions plummeted without a surge in unsafe procedures, as women turned to supportive resources instead.[23]

 

HB7 uses that model, potentially saving thousands from regret, trauma, or health risks associated with chemical abortions.  Finally, Texas' HB7 is a compassionate measure that aligns with the state's values of life, liberty, and responsibility.  By closing the mail-order loophole, Texas is protecting women and the unborn, empowering citizens to enforce the law, and setting a model for other pro-life states.  

​

____________________

[1] New Texas law restricting abortion pills beefs up an existing legal tool; texastribune.org/2025/09/12/texas-abortion-pill-private-lawsuits-legal-fight/

[2] Governor Abbott statement at HB7 bill signing September 17, 2025

[3] Id. Texastribune.org

[4] Texas State Law Library/Abortion; guides.sll.texas.gov/abortion-laws

[5] Medication abortion ban could achieve a top conservative goal; lailluminator.com/2025/09/10/medication-abortion-2

[6] Texas House Advances HB 7 to Crack Down on Abortion Pills; texaspolicyresearch.com/texas-house-advances-hb-7-to-crack-down-on-abortion-pills/

[7] Texas governor signs bill cracking down on mail-order abortion pills; reuters.com/legal/government/texas-governor-signs-bill-cracking-down-mail-order-abortion-pills-2025-09-18/

[8] Supreme Court unanimously strikes down legal challenge to abortion pill mifepristone; abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-unanimously-strikes-legal-challenge-abortion-pill/story?id=110439079

[9] Id. texaspolicyresearch.com

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Information about Mifepristone for Medical Termination of Pregnancy Through Ten Weeks Gestation fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/information-about-mifepristone-medical-termination-pregnancy-through-ten-weeks-gestation

[13] Id. texaspolicyresearch.com

[14] Id.

[15] Id. Texastribune.org

[16] New Texas Law Creates Private Right of Action Against Abortion Medication Providers; gtlaw.com/en/insights/2025/9/new-texas-law-creates-private-right-of-action-against-abortion-medication-providers

[17] Id. texaspolicyresearch.com

[18] Id. gtlaw.com

[19] Choice of Law in an Era of Abortion Conflict, statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/choice-law-era-abortion-conflict

[20] The Intersection of State and Federal Policies on Access to Medication Abortion Via Telehealth after Dobbs; kff.org/womens-health-policy/the-intersection-of-state-and-federal-policies-on-access-to-medication-abortion-via-telehealth-after-dobbs/

[21] ACLU of Texas Comment on Passage of Medication Abortion Ban; aclutx.org/en/press-releases/aclu-texas-comment-passage-medication-abortion-ban

[22] Id. gtlaw.com

[23] Id. Texastribune.org

​

​