“`html
SAN FRANCISCO, January 18, 2026 – A California physician is facing the first lawsuit of its kind under a new Texas law, igniting a fierce legal battle over access to medication abortion. The case underscores the escalating conflict between states with differing abortion policies and raises questions about the reach of state laws in a post-Roe America.
Texas Lawsuit Targets Out-of-State Abortion Pill Provider
The legal action empowers private citizens to sue those who mail abortion medication into Texas.
- Jerry Rodriguez filed suit against dr. Remy Coeytaux,alleging she violated a Texas law by mailing abortion pills.
- The lawsuit seeks $100,000 in damages and an injunction against Coeytaux providing abortion pills in Texas.
- House Bill 7 allows private citizens to sue anyone involved in providing abortion pills within the state.
- California has “shield laws” protecting abortion providers, but these are contested by abortion opponents.
- Demand for abortion pills has increased substantially since the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
jerry Rodriguez is suing Dr. Remy Coeytaux, alleging she illegally provided abortion pills that ended his girlfriend’s pregnancies on two occasions, once in 2024 and again in early 2025. The filing alleges Coeytaux mailed medication to end Rodriguez’s girlfriend’s pregnancies.
According to the complaint, rodriguez’s girlfriend’s estranged husband ordered the abortion pills from Coeytaux. Rodriguez is seeking $100,000 in damages and a court order prohibiting Coeytaux from prescribing or providing abortion-inducing drugs in Texas,alleging wrongful death.
This legal action follows a similar attempt by Louisiana authorities last month to extradite Coeytaux, accusing him of illegally sending abortion pills into their state. California Governor Gavin Newsom swiftly stated he would refuse the extradition request, reinforcing California’s commitment to protecting abortion access.
Texas and Louisiana have some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation. In response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, California passed “shield laws” designed to protect abortion providers from legal repercussions in other states. These shield laws, however, have drawn criticism from abortion opponents who deem them unlawful.
Rodriguez initially filed the lawsuit in July, but updated it on Sunday to leverage House Bill 7, which took effect in December. The bill empowers private citizens to sue anyone who “manufactures, distributes, mails, transports, delivers, prescribes, or provides” abortion pills to individuals in Texas. Individuals can seek damages for pills distributed after the law’s enactment and pursue injunctions against continued supply.
Formally titled the Woman and Child Protection Act, House Bill 7 has faced strong opposition from Democratic legislators and abortion-rights advocates, who argue it’s an attempt to circumvent protections in other states by targeting providers operating outside of texas.
The lawsuit is a stark example of the intensifying conflict between states with differing views on abortion rights as the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Demand for abortion pills has significantly increased as the ruling, especially in Republican-led states where in-person abortion services are limited or unavailable.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, representing Coeytaux, denounced the lawsuit as a purposeful effort to restrict women’s reproductive autonomy. Marc Hearron, associate litigation director at the Center for Reproductive Rights, stated, “This law goes against everything Texans value. It’s anti-freedom, anti-privacy and anti-family…These lawmakers are relentless in their attempts to scare doctors and patients from prescribing and accessing abortion pills – exactly because they are so safe, effective and widely used across the United States.”
What does this lawsuit mean for abortion access?
The case could set a
