Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a civil lawsuit against a New York doctor for allegedly sending abortion pills to a 20-year-old woman in Texas, in violation of the state’s strict abortion laws.
Margaret Carpenter, founder of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, is accused of prescribing abortion pills without holding a Texas medical license.
The lawsuit claims that Carpenter’s actions led to a pregnancy termination and caused serious complications for the patient. Paxton’s office said, “Texas laws prohibit any physician or medical supplier from providing abortion-inducing drugs by courier or mail. No physician may treat Texas residents or prescribe medicine through telehealth unless they hold a valid Texas license.”
Carpenter, based in New York, is not licensed in Texas. The attorney general seeks an injunction to prevent her from practicing in the state and prescribing abortion pills to Texas residents, as well as a $100,000 fine for each violation.
“In Texas, we value the health and lives of mothers and babies, which is why out-of-state doctors cannot illegally prescribe abortion drugs to Texans,” Paxton stated.
This case highlights the tension between Texas’ abortion restrictions and the laws of states like New York, where abortion rights are strongly protected. New York has passed a “shield law” to protect doctors from legal repercussions when prescribing abortion medication to women in states where it is banned.
Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, 18 states with Democratic leadership have enacted similar shield laws to safeguard abortion access, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights.
The Texas lawsuit raises questions about extraterritoriality—the application of one state’s laws to residents or actions in another state—an issue courts may have to address in future cases involving conflicting state laws.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an attempt by anti-abortion groups to restrict access to mifepristone, a widely used abortion pill. The outcome of this case could have major implications for telemedicine practices and cross-state abortion access in the post-Roe era.
