Texas’ Grim New Abortion Law Wants to Intimidate the Country Away from Helping Women in Texas

On Thursday, Texas House Bill 7 went into effect, allowing Texans to sue anyone who sends abortion pills into the state, and further advancing the Lone Star State’s efforts to restrict—and ultimately eliminate—access to telehealth abortions. More than anything, though, HB 7 is a direct attack on shield laws, which protect health care providers from prosecution if they prescribe abortion pills to patients in states with abortion bans. Though you’ll be hard-pressed to find any doctor or reproductive rights organization actually feeling intimidated by the state’s attempt at fearmongering the country into abandoning women in Texas.

“Just because a law was passed in another state, that doesn’t mean we’re going to change our practice,” Dr. Angel Foster, founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project (The MAP), a telehealth medicine provider, told Jezebel on Tuesday. “We feel like the shield law protects us from exactly this kind of action.” Massachusetts is one of 22 states and Washington, D.C. that currently have a shield law in place.

Specifically, HB 7—ironically named “The Women and Child Protection Act”—allows pregnant people, the person who impregnated them, and their close relatives to collect $100,000 for turning in anyone accused of sending them abortion pills. If anyone unrelated files a lawsuit, they can collect $10,000, and the remaining $90,000 is donated to an (undesignated) charity. If women take the pill, they cannot sue—or collect the money—for any reason.

In September, when the bill was signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas), Nimra Chowdhry, senior state legislative counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told Jezebel that it was designed to “scare pregnant Texans out of seeking care and to scare providers from helping them.” “This is another step towards anti-abortion politicians’ ultimate goal: ending access to all abortions for everyone.”

By complying with the laws, policies, and regulations of their states, shield law practices like The MAP are protected from states with laws like HB 7, for now. “Our kind of practice mantra is now anticipatory obedience,” Foster said. “We will continue to provide care until we are legally unable to do so.” Still, she warns HB 7 will have a “chilling effect.” Because “it’s not just about providing, it’s all of the different ways that people help or facilitate or distribute.”

Shield laws have been a target of the country’s collection of anti-abortion attorneys general since Connecticut was the first state to pass one in 2022. Over the summer, 15 of them signed an open letter pleading with Congress to take down the entire system. This is due, in part, to the effectiveness of telehealth abortions—of the estimated 1.1.4 million abortions that were performed in the U.S. in 2024, about a quarter were done through telehealth, and roughly 12,000 abortions per month are able to happen because of shield law protections. According to a national report released in December 2024, Texas saw the highest number of telehealth abortions after Dobbs, and Foster affirms that about a third of MAP’s patients are from Texas. “We anticipate that that will continue to be the case after HB 7 comes into effect.”

In the war against shield laws, though, one anti-abortion ogre stands out: Texas’ very own AG, Ken Paxton. In 2024, he filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against New York-based Dr. Margaret Carpenter for allegedly mailing abortion pills to a Texan woman in 2024, claiming Carpenter violated the state’s near-total abortion ban. In addition to a $113,000 fine, Paxton wanted her to lose her medical license. After the county clerk invoked the state’s shield law (twice), a pissed-off Paxton sued the clerk, prompting a legal war that could have ended up at the Supreme Court. But in November, a New York judge shot down the case, ruling that “Dr. Carpenter’s conduct [fell] squarely within the definition of ‘legally protected health activity,’” adding that her work was “the precise type of conduct (the shield law) was designed to protect.”

It’s not clear whether Paxton appealed the rulings (the deadline for his office to do so just passed), or whether HB 7 will inspire him to pile on new litigations, but what is definite is that shield law practices like The MAP will continue operating. “We are here for Texans who need abortion care,” Foster said. “We are here for Texans who need support around abortion and information.”

---

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.