Legislation aimed at curtailing mail-order abortions in Texas cleared a decisive hurdle, part of a broader push by abortion opponents to limit the procedure even in states where it is legal.
Lawmakers in Texas moved decisively on Thursday to curtail the distribution of mail-order abortion medications from states like New York and California, allowing nearly anyone to sue doctors, distributors and manufacturers anywhere in the country and collect cash awards.
Supporters hope and opponents fear the legislation, nearing final passage in Texas, will serve as a model for other states to limit medication abortion by promoting a rash of lawsuits against medical providers, pharmaceutical companies and companies such as FedEx or UPS that may ship the drugs.
If the legislation works as hoped, abortion opponents say, the availability of medication abortion could become more limited, even in states where abortion remains legal, because manufacturers and delivery companies could be expected to limit distribution in Texas to avoid legal liability.
"This is the strongest and the most legally dynamic attempt that our movement has made yet," said John Seago, the president of Texas Right to Life. While the legislation is focused on Texas, he added, "hopefully this will lead to a wider protection."
Texas's effort is part of a broader strategy by abortion foes to target the rising popularity of medication abortion and to expand limits on the procedure into states that ostensibly protect abortion rights. President Trump's budget and policy law, passed by Congress this summer, imposed a one-year ban on state Medicaid payments to any health-care nonprofit that offers abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal funding in 2023.
A federal judge in Maine declined on Monday to block the government from stripping Medicaid funding from one of Maine's largest abortion providers, finding that to do so would override "the will of the people as expressed by Congress."
Proponents of the Texas legislation also hoped it would undermine "shield laws" in Democrat-led states that protect abortion providers from liability. The conflict between different states' handling of abortion-related lawsuits could ultimately lead to the Supreme Court.
"Texas is sort of the tip of the spear," said Marc Hearron, the associate director of litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which provides legal support to abortion providers. "It's setting up a clash."
Anti-abortion activists and many conservatives have been upset that the number of abortions nationwide has not declined since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 and a raft of conservative states banned the procedure. Studies have found that a rise in abortions using prescription pills, mifepristone and misoprostol, often prescribed and mailed from states where abortion is legal to those where it is not, is a key reason.
"We are responding to a new trend that has popped up on the other side," Mr. Seago said. "My hope is that the penalty is so high and that the standing is so wide -- anybody can bring these lawsuits -- that it will deter doctors in California and in New York from doing business in Texas."
Other Republican-led states have looked for ways to curb the interstate mailing of abortion medication. In Louisiana, lawmakers approved a measure last month allowing for suits against out-of-state doctors who provide abortion medications. The Tennessee legislature considered a similar bill this year, but it failed to pass.
The Texas measure is the legislature's second attempt to try to curb mail-order abortion pills, after failing to pass similar legislation during its regular session in the spring. Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican and an abortion opponent, then called for the legislature to try again during a pair of special sessions this summer in which most of the attention focused on a Republican push for redistricting.
It was already illegal to provide abortion medication in Texas under the state's near-total ban, which provides for serious criminal and civil penalties.
The new Texas legislation, which was approved 82-to-48, goes farther. It allows ordinary people unconnected to a pregnant woman to sue manufacturers, and people who provide or send medications that induce abortions to Texans, or intend to do so -- and to collect a minimum of $100,000 in damages. Women who take such medications to end their pregnancies could not be sued under the legislation. A suit can be brought even if no abortion has taken place.
"An abortion does not have to occur for there to potentially be enforcement?" State Representative Erin Zwiener, a Democrat from San Marcos, asked during debate on Thursday.
"Correct," said State Representative Jeff Leach, a Dallas-area Republican who sponsored the bill.
Ms. Zwiener presented a hypothetical situation in which the parent of a pregnant daughter called a clinic outside of Texas and inquired about mail-order abortion pills. "That person could potentially be liable under this type of lawsuit?" she asked.
"Correct," Mr. Leach said.
Similar legislation already passed the State Senate. With passage in the House, it now needs to be signed off on again by the Senate before heading to Gov. Greg Abbott's desk for his expected signature.
The bill initially divided anti-abortion activists. Some were concerned that it would invite "bounty hunters" to file suits aimed at "profiting from the death of an unborn child to whom they are entirely unconnected," said Joe Pojman, the executive director of the Texas Alliance for Life, in testimony at a House hearing on Friday.
But Mr. Pojman's group backed the final House version of the legislation after new language was inserted saying that unrelated plaintiffs would only be able to keep $10,000 -- with the remaining $90,000 going to a charity of the plaintiff's choice, as long as the person filing the lawsuit did not have a direct connection or a financial stake in it. The revised bill also does not allow suits to be brought by domestic abusers or by men who committed sexual assault resulting in a pregnancy.
"We are united," Amy O'Donnell, a spokeswoman for Texas Alliance for Life," said of the anti-abortion advocacy groups.
The bill was modeled on legislation approved in 2021 that effectively prohibited most abortions in Texas even before the Supreme Court allowed for a total ban. Both laws were designed to create a deterrent by promoting civil lawsuits though few such suits were actually filed under the 2021 law.
The new bill attempts to defeat shield laws in more than a dozen states, including New York, Massachusetts, Colorado and California, in part by declaring that those shield laws could not be used as a defense against suits brought under the Texas law.
But even if a suit is successful in Texas, courts in shield-law states would not be compelled by the new legislation to enforce the judgment.
"It's pushing up against the limits of how much a state can control," said Mr. Hearron of the Center for Reproductive rights. "Each state can have its own laws, but throughout our history we have been able to travel across the country send things across the country."
Republicans and anti-abortion activists in Texas have sought to challenge the shield laws in other ways. A Texas man sued a California doctor last month, and the Texas attorney general has been pursuing legal action against a New York doctor, Margaret Daley Carpenter.
This year, a Texas judge ruled against Dr. Carpenter, ordering her to pay a $100,000 penalty and to stop sending abortion pills to patients in Texas. The doctor and her lawyers have not responded to the Texas suit, relying on the protections of New York laws.
Mr. Leach, the state representative, said that he expected his legislation to be challenged in court.