Texas Father Fights Back Against California Abortion Provider

Nearly two months ago, a groundbreaking case testing the limits of CA state “shield laws” and Texas federal protections for life began. Jerry Rodriguez, a father from Texas, filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Dr. Remy Coeytaux, a California-based abortion provider who mailed abortion drugs across state lines, resulting in the death of his unborn child.

According to the Courthouse News, the lawsuit, led by prominent attorney Jonathan Mitchell, best known as the architect of Texas’ Heartbeat Act, is seeking $75,000 in damages as well as an injunction barring Coeytaux from mailing abortion pills into Texas in the future. 

Rodriguez’s lawsuit argues that Coeytaux violated Texas wrongful-death statutes and the federal Comstock Act of 1873, a long-dormant law that still prohibits the mailing of “every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.” 

Courts will have to determine whether this century-old statute can be applied to modern chemical abortion practices, potentially opening the door for federal enforcement alongside state civil liability. 

The Independent reports that Texas lawmakers have continued to expand private enforcement measures with the passage of SB 2880 in the state Senate on May 1, 2025. Building on the 2021 “heartbeat” law enacted before Roe v. Wade was overturned, which empowered citizens to file lawsuits against anyone who assisted with abortions after a fetal heartbeat was detected, this new bill extends liability even further. Under SB 2880, private individuals can bring civil actions against anyone who mails, prescribes, finances, or distributes abortion pills, no matter where they are located.

According to The Texas Tribune, Sen. Bryan Hughes, author of SB 2880, says, “These are the pills that are being mailed into Texas directly to women, often without instructions, certainly without doctors as before, and without follow-up care after. This is illegal in Texas, but is taking place, and we’ve thus far not been able to protect women.” 

While Texas expands accountability, in addition to being an abortion sanctuary, California is doubling down on legal protections for abortion providers. AB 260 would allow pharmacies to dispense abortion pills without disclosing the prescribing doctor and prevent California licensing boards from disciplining providers, even if they violate other states’ laws. In essence, AB 260 creates a legal sanctuary for providers, even when their actions result in death or injury outside the state.

According to KQED, “Among the efforts to strengthen abortion protections are ‘shield laws,’ which aim to protect patients and providers against ‘out-of-state investigations and prosecutions, professional discipline, and civil liability.’ One of these laws specifically prevents local law enforcement — and California corporations — from cooperating with any out-of-state entities looking into legal abortions done in the state.” 

According to The Texan Tribune, Rachel Rebouché, the dean of the Temple Law School and an expert on shield laws, commented on this case, “This is one of a many-pronged strategy to test these shield laws in as many ways as possible.” 

“But whether this case will go the way they’re expecting, there’s a lot we don’t know yet,” she said.

Accountability versus immunity is the ethical and legal core of the case. California’s AB 260 seeks to shield abortion providers from lawsuits, even when their actions result in death or injury in another state. Yet SB 2880 in Texas explicitly empowers private citizens to pursue legal action against anyone who mails, prescribes, pays for, or distributes abortion pills. This contrast of laws raises urgent questions:

• Should a provider who knowingly mails abortion pills into a state where abortion is illegal remain immune under California law?

• How should courts reconcile the competing rights of states to enforce their own laws with California’s desire to protect abortion providers?

• Can federal law, such as the Comstock Act, serve as a bridge to enforce accountability across state lines?

The outcome of these questions will have implications far beyond one lawsuit. A ruling in favor of Rodriguez could set a precedent for holding abortion providers accountable for cross-state actions, directly challenging California’s legal sanctuary for abortionists. 

Call to action: 

California’s AB 260 seeks to shield abortion providers from accountability, even when their actions harm women and destroy innocent lives across state lines. This dangerous law puts profit and ideology above the safety of children and families. Take a stand today and contact your legislators, raise your voice, and join the California Family Council in opposing AB 260 to protect life, uphold justice, and defend the rights of parents and children.