
Questions swirl on if Texas bill to fine people who package the abortion pill $100k is actually legal
Under a bill just passed by the Texas Senate, a private citizen can sue someone or an organization that mails, prescribes, or manufactures abortion -inducing drugs for $100,000 — but some critics question the legislation's legality.
Abortions are banned in the state and the new bill could add more intimidation around the already stigmatized procedure.
In an expansion of the controversial pre- Roe 2021 'heartbeat' law that allowed private citizens to sue anyone who 'aids and abets' or provides abortions after a heartbeat is detected, the latest legislation — SB2880 — permits private citizens to sue groups and individuals who have mailed, prescribed, paid for or distributed abortion pills — regardless of location.
The bill also allows for these parties to be sued for the wrongful death or personal injury of an unborn child or pregnant person due to the use of the medications and targets internet providers that allow Texans to access information on abortion pills.
The state Senate passed the bill on Tuesday, but not without criticism. Some argued that it's legally dubious.
Speaking on the floor Tuesday, Democratic Sen. Nathan Johnson called the legislation a 'flagrant, brazen transgression of the principles of separation of powers on which this country and state was founded.'
Last month, Veronikah Warms, a staff attorney at the Texas Civil Rights Project, labeled it an 'incursion on Texans' constitutional rights' when speaking to the Senate Committee on State Affairs.
'Under this bill, as written, a person could potentially go to prison for life for paying for a woman's sandwich while knowing that she was traveling to get a legal out-of-state abortion,' Warms said to the committee. 'What is the point of having state laws defining legal content in their borders if a legislature can just decide to prosecute people for legal activity in other states? Where does that end?'
Rachel Rebouché, dean of Temple University's Beasley School of Law, argued that SB2880 hinges on private action, much like the 2021 heartbeat law. 'This is Texas legislators trying the same strategy to try to circumvent a federal constitutional challenge,' Rebouché told the 19th News.
The bill would allow anyone to sue a wide swath of the population, including loved ones of those obtaining medication abortions and support organizations, like Texas Equal Access Fund, a nonprofit that offers financial and emotional support to Texans in need of reproductive care.
If passed, 'we would be worried about being subjected to harassing lawsuits that could get in the way of our work of helping people access abortion care,' Kamyon Conner, executive director of Texas Equal Access Fund, told The Independent in an email.
Republican Texas state Sen. Bryan Hughes, who authored the bill, argued it's meant to protect women.
'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,' Hughes said Tuesday. 'This is illegal in Texas but is taking place, and we've thus far not been able to protect women.'
But Conner had a different take.
While this bill targets individuals and organizations who help women to obtain medication abortions, it's likely to impact the women themselves too. This is especially true for low-income Texans, people of color, immigrants, young people, and rural communities 'who already face the greatest barriers to health care,' Conner said.
The legislation is also likely to affect patients treating miscarriages, as both miscarriages and medication abortions often use mifepristone and misoprostol.
SB2880 could also curb some providers from wanting to help Texans, Conner added: 'If this threatens out-of-state providers and they don't feel safe, this could mean they won't take Texas patients and it could prevent us from being able to help fund medication abortion care in other states.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Democrats have a dirty secret - they actually like some of the tax cuts in Trump's ‘big beautiful bill'
Some of the sweeping tax cuts proposed in President Donald Trump 's massive spending package have found support among Democrats — even as they are expected to oppose the legislation over proposed cuts to Medicaid and other government services when it comes up for debate in the Senate later this month, according to a new report. The gargantuan budget package, which House Republicans and the White House have dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed the House by a single vote last month and is now drawing heat from fiscal hawks in both chambers as well as Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who was fresh off his months-long stint as a special government employee when he began threatening to back challengers to any legislator who votes for the bill. Still, there are facets of the proposal that have appeal for some Democrats, the New York Times reports. Virginia Rep. Don Beyer, a Democrat who is also a wealthy car dealership owner, told the Times his party is 'in general very much in favor of reducing taxes on working people and the working poor' when asked about Trump's plan to end taxes on service workers' tips. 'Those people are living on tips,' he added. Trump's tip tax cut plan has also attracted attention from Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada, a state where service workers make up a large and powerful voting bloc that has traditionally supported Democrats but shifted to Trump in large numbers during the 2024 presidential election, handing him the Silver State's electoral votes. Rosen, a Democrat, took to the Senate floor last month to advance a bill approving Trump's 'no tax on tips' plan. It passed unanimously even though the measure was largely symbolic because the U.S. constitution requires tax laws to originate in the House 'I am not afraid to embrace a good idea, wherever it comes from,'. she said at the time in remarks on the Senate floor. Yet despite the support for some of the individual tax provisions in the plan, it's highly unlikely that it will be able to muster enough if any Democrats to ease the way to Trump's desk, even under a Senate procedure known as budget reconciliation, which fast-tracks some types of spending legislation without subjecting it to the upper chamber's de facto 60-vote threshold for passage. Democrats are expected to unanimously vote against the legislation in the upper chamber, where it has also attracted opposition from some Republicans who've complained that the cuts to spending in the package don't go far enough to offset the reduced revenue caused by provisions meant to enact Trump campaign promises to end taxes on tips for service workers, as well as taxes on overtime pay for hourly workers and on social security benefits for seniors. Nonpartisan experts such as those at the Congressional Budget Office have warned that the reduced tax receipts would blow a massive hole in the federal budget and jeopardize America's long-term fiscal outlook, but that hasn't stopped some prominent Democrats from getting behind the individuals tax cuts. Trump and his allies hope the prominent tax cut proposals will blunt Democrats' efforts to paint the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as a giveaway to wealthy GOP donors that will gut government services while only providing limited relief for working-class voters. To that end, the president and others in his camp have routinely taken to social media to argue that anyone who votes against the bill is effectively voting for tax increases because the legislation makes permanent a number of temporary tax cuts enacted in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which Trump signed into law during his first term. Democrats, meanwhile, remain opposed to the bill's massive cuts to Medicare and other measures that make it harder for people to claim tax credits meant to boost lower-income Americans' bottom lines. Rep. Brad Schneider, an Illnois Democrat, told the Times that the whole bill had to be considered rather than any individual provision or provisiosn. 'Any one thing — a tax credit or a tax cut — might make sense, but you've got to take a look at the whole picture,' he said.


Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
The LA immigration riots are US politics at its worst
This weekend's immigration protests in LA showed every element in American politics at its absolute worst. The right was rabidly xenophobic, President Trump belligerent and authoritarian. Democratic leadership clueless, unfocused, weak and in denial – and the left manipulative and deliberately violent. Anyone with a whit of sense stayed as far away from the proceedings as possible. The right does no one any favours when they discuss America's immigration problems as a war for the future of civilisation. Maybe in the case of the Egyptian national who torched elderly Jewish people in Boulder last weekend, they have a point, but not when it comes to the quotidian ICE immigration operation that just went down in LA. But opposing that operation isn't exactly something on which the left should hang its balaclava either. Judging from the vociferous weekend-long passion play we saw unfold, you'd think that ICE had loaded the residents of an orphanage or a nunnery into a van, gouged out their eyes, and sent them to a windowless dungeon.


North Wales Chronicle
7 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Protests intensify in Los Angeles after Trump deploys National Guard troops
They blocked off a major road and set self-driving cars on fire as law enforcement used tear gas, rubber bullets and flash bangs to control the crowd. Many protesters dispersed as evening fell and police declared an unlawful assembly, a precursor to officers moving in and making arrests of people who do not leave. Some of those remaining threw objects at police from behind a makeshift barrier that spanned the width of a street and others hurled chunks of concrete, rocks, electric scooters and fireworks at California Highway Patrol officers and their vehicles parked on the closed southbound 101 freeway. Officers ran under an overpass to take cover. Sunday's protests in Los Angeles, a sprawling city of four million people, were centred in downtown several blocks. It was the third and most intense day of demonstrations against Mr Trump's immigration crackdown in the region, as the arrival of around 300 Guard troops spurred anger and fear among many residents. The Guard was deployed specifically to protect federal buildings, including the detention centre where protesters concentrated. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said officers were 'overwhelmed' by the remaining protesters. He said they included regular agitators who appear at demonstrations to cause trouble. Several dozen people were arrested throughout the weekend of protest. One was detained on Sunday for throwing a Molotov cocktail at police, and another for ramming a motorcycle into a line of officers. Let's get this straight: 1) Local law enforcement didn't need help. 2) Trump sent troops anyway — to manufacture chaos and violence. 3) Trump succeeded. 4) Now things are destabilized and we need to send in more law enforcement just to clean up Trump's mess. — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 9, 2025 Mr Trump responded to Mr McDonnell on Truth Social, telling him to arrest protesters in face masks. 'Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!' he wrote. Starting in the morning, the troops stood shoulder to shoulder, carrying long guns and riot shields as protesters shouted 'shame' and 'go home'. After some closely approached the guard members, another set of uniformed officers advanced on the group, shooting smoke-filled canisters into the street. Minutes later, the Los Angeles Police Department fired rounds of crowd-control munitions to disperse the protesters, who they said were assembled unlawfully. Much of the group then moved to block traffic on the 101 freeway until state patrol officers cleared them from the roadway by late afternoon. Nearby, at least four self-driving Waymo cars were set on fire, sending large plumes of black smoke into the sky and exploding intermittently as the electric vehicles burned. By evening, police had issued an unlawful assembly order shutting down several blocks of downtown Los Angeles. Flash bangs echoed out every few seconds into the evening. Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom requested that Mr Trump remove the guard members in a letter on Sunday afternoon, calling their deployment a 'serious breach of state sovereignty'. He was in Los Angeles meeting local law enforcement and officials. The deployment appeared to be the first time in decades that a state's national guard was activated without a request from its governor, a significant escalation against those who have sought to hinder the administration's mass deportation efforts. Mr Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass blamed the increasingly aggressive protests on Mr Trump's decision to deploy the Guard, calling it a move designed to inflame tensions. They have both urged protesters to remain peaceful. 'What we're seeing in Los Angeles is chaos that is provoked by the administration,' she said in an afternoon press conference. 'This is about another agenda, this isn't about public safety.' But Mr McDonnell, the LAPD chief, said the protests were following a similar pattern for episodes of civil unrest, with things ramping up in the second and third days. He pushed back against claims by the Trump administration that the LAPD had failed to help federal authorities when protests broke out on Friday after a series of immigration raids. His department responded as quickly as it could, and had not been notified in advance of the raids and therefore was not pre-positioned for protests, he said. Mr Newsom, meanwhile, has repeatedly said that California authorities had the situation under control. He mocked Mr Trump for posting a congratulatory message to the Guard on social media before troops had even arrived in Los Angeles, and said on MSNBC that Mr Trump never floated deploying the Guard during a Friday phone call. He called Mr Trump a 'stone cold liar'. The admonishments did not deter the administration. 'It's a bald-faced lie for Newsom to claim there was no problem in Los Angeles before President Trump got involved,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement. The arrival of the National Guard followed two days of protests that began Friday in Los Angeles before spreading on Saturday to Paramount, a heavily Latino city south of the city, and neighbouring Compton. Federal agents arrested immigrants in LA's fashion district, in a Home Depot parking lot and at several other locations on Friday. The next day, they were staging at a Department of Homeland Security office near another Home Depot in Paramount, which drew out protesters who suspected another raid. Federal authorities later said there was no enforcement activity at that Home Depot. The weeklong tally of immigrant arrests in the LA area climbed above 100, federal authorities said. Many more were arrested while protesting, including a prominent union leader who was accused of impeding law enforcement. The protests did not reach the size of past demonstrations that brought the National Guard to Los Angeles, including the Watts and Rodney King riots, and the 2020 protests against police violence, in which Mr Newsom requested the assistance of federal troops. The last time the National Guard was activated without a governor's permission was in 1965, when President Lyndon B Johnson sent troops to protect a civil rights march in Alabama, according to the Brennan Centre for Justice. In a directive on Saturday, Mr Trump invoked a legal provision allowing him to deploy federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States'. He said he had authorised the deployment of 2,000 members of the National Guard. Mr Trump told reporters as he prepared to board Air Force One in Morristown, New Jersey, Sunday that there were 'violent people' in Los Angeles 'and they're not going to get away with it'. Asked if he planned to send US troops to Los Angeles, Mr Trump replied: 'We're going to have troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country.' He did not elaborate. About 500 marines stationed at Twentynine Palms, about 125 miles (200 kilometres) east of Los Angeles were in a 'prepared to deploy status' on Sunday afternoon, according to the US Northern Command.