The situation for America’s children is grim. Following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, abortions have actually increased nationwide. That means that what looked to be a momentous achievement for the pro-life movement was really only a Pyrrhic victory.
Make no mistake about it, the pro-abortionists are winning, and they are winning by the widest of margins.
It all comes down to their simple strategy: flooding the country with abortion pills like they are candy. In total defiance of numerous states’ abortion laws, criminal rings of pro-abortion radicals are shipping abortion pills everywhere to anyone who asks for them. They have no fear of the law because their states are pledging to protect them from prosecution with “shield laws.” (RELATED: ‘Dr. Maggie,’ Notorious Abortionist)
It seems that the only state that is energetically attempting to combat this most dismal of situations, which is resulting in the murders of more than a million children a year, is Texas. No other state seems to grasp that outlawing abortion, limiting it to early in pregnancy, or closing Planned Parenthood clinics will do nothing to decrease abortions when the instrument of death can be mailed in an envelope within a few days’ time.
The purpose of the law is to target these rings of mifepristone traffickers via civil lawsuits that include penalties of up to $100,000.
On Thursday, Texas took a major step toward combating the abortion pill pipeline when HB 7, the Woman and Child Protection Act, went into effect. The purpose of the law is to target these rings of mifepristone traffickers via civil lawsuits that include penalties of up to $100,000.
HB 7 aims to get around pro-abortion states’ “shield laws,” which have been used to protect criminal abortionists from prosecutions and fines stemming from pro-life states. Leftist legal analysts have argued that the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires states to recognize other states’ judicial proceedings, has a loophole in that it does not require states to recognize penal judgments, meaning judgments that are intended to punish wrongdoing rather than compensate someone. As civil lawsuits for monetary damages, the suits called for in HB 7 should theoretically sidestep this argument that states are not obligated to enforce other states’ penal judgments. However, lawyers on the left are already claiming that, though HB 7 would bring about civil lawsuits, they would in reality be penal in nature because they aim to punish people for breaking Texas’s abortion laws. (RELATED: How Trump 2.0 Can Get Back to Trump 1.0 on the Abortion Pill)
Presumably, Texas would argue that HB 7 indeed calls for civil action. But its lawyers would also argue that abortion states must respect its criminal prosecutions and extradition orders. In a 2025 letter to Congress, 16 conservative attorneys general argued that shield laws violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause because liberal states are “refusing to give full faith and credit to that State’s judicial proceedings” when they “refuse[] to respect a criminal prosecution or a civil judgment against an individual who is accused of violating the abortion laws of another State.” They further argued that abortion states’ refusal to extradite those accused of violating abortion laws violates the Constitution’s Extradition Clause.
Right now, abortion traffickers do not seem particularly scared by Texas’s new law. The 19th, a liberal publication focused on “Women and LGBTQ+ people,” surveyed abortion pill providers about their plans for delivering abortion pills to Texas post-HB 7. Concerningly, all the groups the 19th asked said they were committed to continuing to ship abortion pills to Texas. Elisa Wells, the “access director” for Plan C, an organization dedicated to informing people of where they can illegally purchase abortion pills online, told the 19th, “If anything, the implementation of this law makes people more determined to help folks in Texas access abortion pills.” (RELATED: Enforce Comstock: End ‘Mail-Order’ Abortions)
Perhaps what has alleviated their fears is that no one attempted to use Texas’s Senate Bill 8, which had a mechanism similar to HB 7, to sue abortion providers. However, John Seago, the head of Texas Right to Life, who had a major role in getting HB 7 passed, has said that he and his allies are already putting together a team to bring one of these lawsuits if the need arises.
All sides are expecting that lawsuits from HB 7 could ignite a legal fight that could go all the way up to the Supreme Court.
“I’m not naive that there could easily be suits, and that means our lawyers will have to be involved in handling that,” said Dr. Angel Foster, the founder of an abortion pill mill. “But we’re not changing anything about our practice and not anticipating any changes to our practice in regard to HB 7.”
Seago, on the other hand, explained that much of the purpose of HB 7 is to get this issue before the Supreme Court. “We think there is going to be a kind of this standoff between Texas and New York that maybe goes back to the Supreme Court,” he told the Guardian. “I would be very interested to get that case. We’re actually looking to spur that on.”
READ MORE from Ellie Gardey Holmes:
Another Man Accused of Forcing Abortion Pills on Mother of His Child
Activists in Michigan Move to Integrate Abortions Into Urgent Care Clinics
