Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing a New York-based abortionist for violating Texas law by shipping abortion drugs into the state.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, however, is pushing back, saying a recently passed “shield law” protects abortion providers from prosecution by other states, setting the stage for what some call an abortion “civil war” scenario.
Paxton released a statement saying the out-of-state doctor “caused serious harm” to the Texas woman and explained he was launching the suit because “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, filed in the federal District Court for Collin County, posits that New York abortionist Dr. Margaret Carpenter violated Texas law and endangered a 20-year-old Texas woman by illegally shipping drugs into the state without first conducting an in-person examination of the woman to determine the gestational age of her baby.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks at a news conference in Dallas on June 22, 2017. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)
Chemical abortions, which now account for more than 60% of all U.S. abortions, are known to present a risk of severe complications and infection in some cases. Despite this, the Biden administration further rolled back restrictions on chemical abortion, permanently allowing the drugs to be prescribed via telemedicine, shipped through mail and obtained at retail pharmacies such as CVS and Walgreens.
Some states, however, including Texas, continue to restrict chemical abortion from being distributed through the mail or without a doctor’s consultation.
The 20-year-old Texas woman who obtained the abortion pills from Carpenter ended up being admitted to a local hospital because of a hemorrhage or severe bleeding as a result of the drugs, according to the Paxton lawsuit.
“Carpenter provided abortion-inducing drugs to the pregnant Collin County woman, which caused an adverse event or abortion complication and resulted in a medical abortion,” the suit claims. “Carpenter’s knowing and continuing violations of Texas law places women and unborn children in Texas at risk.”
Bottles of abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol are seen at a clinic in Des Moines, Iowa, on Sept. 22, 2010. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
The suit requests civil penalties and a permanent block on Carpenter from sending more abortion drugs to Texas women.
However, New York state has a so-called “shield” law that explicitly protects abortion providers from prosecution for prescribing abortion pills to patients in states where it is illegal. This is the first legal challenge to be launched by a state pitting one set of abortion laws against that of another.
Hochul responded to the Texas lawsuit by saying, “I will do everything in my power to enforce the laws of New York State.”
“No doctor should be punished for providing necessary care to their patients,” she said, adding, “As Texas attempts to limit women’s rights, I’m committed to maintaining New York’s status as a safe harbor for all who seek abortion care, and protecting the reproductive freedom of all New Yorkers.”
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul speaks during a press announcement at the Governor’s office in New York on Nov. 14. (Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Experts believe the Texas challenge could eventually be bound for the Supreme Court.
Kristi Hamrick, vice president of media and policy for the pro-life group Students for Life Action, told Fox News Digital that she is hopeful the Texas lawsuit makes its way to the Supreme Court so that it could re-examine the question of national safeguards on abortion pills.
Hamrick said that though the Supreme Court ruled against re-implementing abortion pill restrictions in a case called AHM v. FDA earlier this year, the court made it clear it was not shutting the door on restoring the safeguards through another case.
“The Supreme Court did not say that everything with the pills was great, they could be sold as they were [and] there were no problems with the pills,” she explained. “What the Supreme Court said is you need to go back and start again, you’ve come to us with the wrong victims, they didn’t have what the court called ‘standing.’”
Anti-abortion and pro-abortion rights activists are separated by a barrier as they protest outside the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., ahead of arguments in the Mississippi abortion rights case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health on Dec. 1, 2021. (Reuters/Jonathan Ernst)
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“So, the three states have already joined in saying we have standing, we are a victim because we are paying higher emergency room bills because of these pills,” she went on. “The state has a right to defend its laws. So, the state, on the face of it, has a right to defend itself and its laws and the laws of its citizens and its duly elected representatives. So, yeah, they have standing.”
Students for Life Action recently launched its own challenge against abortion pills in the form of what is called a “citizen petition.” The petition demands the FDA delay its plans to broaden the use of abortion drugs once again, this time to treat miscarriages, until the agency re-examines how the pills are contaminating the nation’s water supply.
“The Biden-Harris administration during COVID essentially created a de facto right to pollute and that pathological medical waste [from abortion pills] is going into the water supply across America, no one is checking on that,” she said. “Abortion and miscarriage are not the same. But if you’re going to conflate that and then hand out even more of these drugs without any environmental assessment, without any sense of the health and safety risks, that is reckless and dangerous and that is federal.”