Bill To Let Texans Sue Out-of-state Abortion Pill Providers Heads To Governor
Source: Huff Post/AP
Sep 3, 2025, 09:59 PM EDT
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) A measure that would allow Texas residents to sue out-of-state abortion pill providers advanced to the desk of Gov. Greg Abbott Wednesday, setting the state up to be the first to try to crack down on the most common abortion method.
Supporters say its a key tool to enforce the states abortion ban, protecting women and fetuses.
Opponents see it not only as another way to rein in abortion but as an effort to intimidate abortion providers outside Texas who are complying with the laws in their states and to encourage a form of vigilantism.
If the measure becomes law, its nearly certain to spark legal challenges from abortion rights supporters.
Read more: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/abortion-texas-out-of-state_n_68b8e228e4b041ed82bd20bb

Lovie777
(20,258 posts)another lawsuit.
JustAnotherGen
(37,067 posts)don't realize how much some of us in the Northeast hate their guts and will do anything to flip the bird at them.
walkingman
(9,843 posts)It is like living in a mental ward in the summer with the heat on. The Texas State government is sick.
JustAnotherGen
(37,067 posts)We see what they are doing to you guys. Pure fucking evil.
electric_blue68
(23,875 posts)She told us on FB when Biden won that she'd dance outside but she might get shot.
JustAnotherGen
(37,067 posts)We will do whatever the hell we want in NJ. Governor Hot Wheels can fuck all the way off.
bucolic_frolic
(52,410 posts)until someone invents a treatment based on mesquite.
LeftInTX
(33,983 posts)I wonder if it's possible?
bucolic_frolic
(52,410 posts)I hear a lot of them are seeking employment.
Diamond_Dog
(38,490 posts)What suffering has any average Texas resident endured besides having their extremist misogynistic beliefs challenged? A court should throw this out!
Redleg
(6,616 posts)To me it seems akin to Texas offering a bounty to people who rat out a woman who might have had an abortion.
ProudMNDemocrat
(20,246 posts)Are lawmakers in Texas also going to BAN Birth Control methods as well? "We can't have them Texas women preventing pregnancy, now can we?"
Pregnancies can and do go wrong. They would rather women die from a pregnancy gone wrong rather than get care when they do.
Nigrum Cattus
(1,005 posts)This will only drive the supply of pills underground.
They will be smuggled in from Canada & Mexico.
The religious extremists are truly a negative influence
on society.
ananda
(33,172 posts)women and fetuses.
GB_RN
(3,439 posts)No state can interfere with another in this manner. But I dont trust the Corrupt 6 to actually follow the Constitution anymore.
moonshinegnomie
(3,642 posts)protecting abortion pill providors in the state from lawsuits in the same way. make it so suing a california resident for providing an abortion pill means a claifornia resident can sue the person suing damages. same idea....
BumRushDaShow
(160,228 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 4, 2025, 01:02 PM - Edit history (1)
Shield Law protectionsNY went through this nonsense with TX the past year -
NY court blocks Texas from punishing abortion telehealth doctor, testing state shield law (Mar. 2025)
Ulster County clerk rejects Texas second attempt to file abortion judgment (Jul. 2025)
22 states + D.C. have laws against out-of-state prosecutions
16 states + D.C. have laws against civil liability
moonshinegnomie
(3,642 posts)NY law says they wont co-operate with othe states on ant abortion laws. Id allow people in NY or other states to sue people in texas.
IE doctor smith in texas perscribes an abortion pill to a texas woman whchi then gets the pill from pharmacy x
joe texas decides to sue both the doctor and the pharmacy under the new texas law.
my idea would allow any resident of NY to file a lawsuit in NY against joe texas. same idea as the texas law.
BumRushDaShow
(160,228 posts)(with the slow courts), based on what Paxton did during the 2020 election suing other states because he didn't like how they ran their elections - the courts (including the SCOTUS) threw the suits out.
In essence, a state doesn't have that kind of authority over how another state handles its affairs.
By NOMAAN MERCHANT, ALANNA DURKIN RICHER and MARK SHERMAN
Published 9:13 AM EDT, December 12, 2020
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit backed by President Donald Trump to overturn Joe Bidens election victory, ending a desperate attempt to get legal issues rejected by state and federal judges before the nations highest court and subvert the will of voters.
(snip)
Fridays order marked the second time this week that the court had rebuffed Republican requests that it get involved in the 2020 election outcome and reject the voters choice, as expressed in an election regarded by both Republican and Democratic officials as free and fair. The justices turned away an appeal from Pennsylvania Republicans on Tuesday. On Monday, the Electoral College meets to formally elect Biden as the next president.
Trump had called the lawsuit filed by Texas against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin the big one that would end with the Supreme Court undoing Bidens substantial Electoral College majority and allowing Trump to serve another four years in the White House.
In a brief order, the court said Texas does not have the legal right to sue those states because it has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.
(snip)
Whenever you DO see states "cooperate", they have MOUs (Memorandums of Understanding) and other agreements (like for extradition) in place to authorize it.
I do get what you are saying - "What's good for the goose is good for the gander".

moonshinegnomie
(3,642 posts)all it would be is the state saying person x has standing to sue in a NY court for damages. no different than the texas law giving a texas resident standing to sue.
BumRushDaShow
(160,228 posts)and some states sued TX in advance for the law being unconstitutional, but those suits were thrown out, apparently because "no one had used the law yet" or some such wording.
However there was one suit that was filed by someone who did try to use it against a TX doctor and it was thrown out because they could not show it harmed them (in this case, the TX courts threw it out) -
Texas Court Throws Out Case Against Doctor Who Violated Abortion Ban
In any case, the shield laws supposedly preclude "liability" suits from out of state plaintiffs for specific reproductive rights issues, along with gender-affirming care (at least some of the state laws). I can't see how a state can dictate who has standing in another state.
moonshinegnomie
(3,642 posts)in my example it would be a case filed in NY.. against a texas defendent. no different then a person in texas filing a texas lawsuit against a ny doctor.
BumRushDaShow
(160,228 posts)some Sandy Hook families sued Alex Jones in a CT court, despite Jones residing in TX (others sued him directly in a TX court) -
Connecticut Supreme Court declines to hear Alex Jones appeal of $1B Sandy Hook verdict
That was obviously a civil suit though.
I think most lawyers want to keep their licenses by avoiding the idiocy that TX loons like Paxton, participates in continually.
LeftInTX
(33,983 posts)It's hit or miss. I think the plaintiff can file in any state court, but they filed in San Antonio where currently every judge is a Democrat.
If they would have filed in any of the five surrounding suburban counties the judge probably would not have tossed the case. I don't know the law particular , but Dr Braid practiced in SA. I swear you can file in any state court.
CTyankee
(67,069 posts)border guards stopping cars with young women in them and an anti-choice state license plate...
bluestarone
(20,292 posts)Next in line to get prison time!! (If these monsters get their way)
Skittles
(167,452 posts)oh yeah, that is just more repuke bullshit
ffr
(23,243 posts)https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/texas-measles-outbreak-cdc-vaccines-rfk-trump/
Texas announces second death in measles outbreak
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/news-alerts/texas-announces-second-death-measles-outbreak
The school-aged child who tested positive for measles was hospitalized in Lubbock and passed away on Thursday from what the childs doctors described as measles pulmonary failure. The child was not vaccinated and had no reported underlying conditions.
Rhiannon12866
(243,008 posts)
NickB79
(20,104 posts)Let's see these dumb fucks try to sue Google.