A New Front Emerges in the Legal Battle Over Abortion Pill Access

On Monday, New York AG Letitia James announced she’s intervening in Texas AG Ken Paxton’s lawsuit challenging New York’s shield laws—a case that could reach the Supreme Court.

By Danielle Han  |  September 8, 2025 | 5:43pm
Photos: Getty Images AbortionPolitics
A New Front Emerges in the Legal Battle Over Abortion Pill Access

It’s been nine months since Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (vomit-alert!) sued a New York doctor for allegedly shipping abortion pills to Texas, six months since his lawsuit was blocked by Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck because shield laws exist, and two months since Bruck upheld his decision because, well, shield laws exist. In July, Bruck explained his latest ruling with nothing but common sense: “While I’m not entirely sure how things work in Texas, here in New York, a rejection means the matter is closed.” Expectedly, Paxton threw a fit and that same month, filed yet another lawsuit, this time against Bruck for refusing to comply. Now, New York Attorney General Letitia James is getting involved. 

“I am stepping in to defend the integrity of our courts against this blatant overreach,” the AG said in a statement. “Texas has no authority in New York, and no power to impose its cruel abortion ban here. Our shield law exists to protect New Yorkers from out-of-state extremists, and New York will always stand strong as a safe haven for health care and freedom of choice.”

New York is one of eight Democrat-led states that have enacted a “shield law,” which allows providers to remotely prescribe abortion pills to anyone in the country, even if they live in a state with an abortion ban. They’ve become a growing flashpoint among anti-abortion lawmakers and activists, especially as abortion pills prescribed through telehealth are more common in a post-Roe America. According to the Society of Family Planning, by the end of 2024, 1 in 4 abortions were provided via telehealth.

On Monday, James formally notified Ulster County Supreme Court Judge David Gandin that she plans to intervene in Paxton’s lawsuits and will file court briefs to debate Texas’s ability to enforce its abortion laws across state lines. The legal battle is expected to make its way to the conservative Supreme Court, where the justices will rule on whether one state’s abortion ban can extend to another. But I’m sure the same court that overturned Roe will find that shield laws are completely constitutional. 

Following her statement, Paxton, ever a shooter-of-the-messenger of how American law works, accused James of “weaponizing her office for her political career” and said she was a “lawless abortionist who is obsessed with killing babies.” On Twitter, he declared: “I will defeat her in court.” (Weird brag from someone who uses taxpayer money to pay his way through his cases.)

At the center of Paxton’s lawsuits is Dr. Margaret Carpenter, who allegedly mailed abortion pills to a 20-year-old woman in Dallas in 2024. She’s since become a particularly contentious target of anti-abortion GOP legislators for performing the radical act of…doing her job. About a month after Paxton filed his first lawsuit against her, a Louisiana jury indicted her for reportedly mailing abortion pills to a woman in the state, which also has a near-total ban. She’s the first healthcare provider to be criminally charged with providing medication abortion to people in abortion-banned states.

Last week, Texas passed a bill that will allow any Texan citizen to sue anyone trying to send abortion pills into Texas (specifically: anyone who “manufactures, distributes, mails, transports, delivers, prescribes, or provides” it). It currently sits on Governor Greg Abbott’s desk for signature.

“I will fight every last attempt to roll back our rights and turn back the clock on reproductive freedom,” James concluded in her statement. Fingers crossed—but I’m terrified!!!!

Like what you just read? You’ve got great taste. Subscribe to Jezebel, and for $5 a month or $50 a year, you’ll get access to a bunch of subscriber benefits, including getting to read the next article (and all the ones after that) ad-free. Plus, you’ll be supporting independent journalism—which, can you even imagine not supporting independent journalism in times like these? Yikes.

 
Join the discussion...