A Galveston County man has amended his lawsuit against a California physician, invoking Texas’ new House Bill 7 to seek at least $75,000 in damages and potentially $100,000 per violation for allegedly providing abortion-inducing medication to his partner. The case marks the first known attempt to use the law against an out-of-state doctor.
.jpg)
A man from Galveston County has broadened his legal action against a physician based in California, marking the first recorded instance of a plaintiff utilizing Texas’s recently enacted House Bill 7. This action seeks damages for abortion-inducing medication allegedly sent into the state.
On Sunday, Jerry Rodriguez submitted an amended complaint against Dr. Remy Coeytaux, claiming that the physician supplied abortion pills to Rodriguez's girlfriend under the instructions of her former spouse. Rodriguez asserts that he is the father of two pregnancies that concluded on September 19, 2024, and in January 2025, following the woman's use of the medication.
Rodriguez initiated legal proceedings in July. Attorney Jonathan Mitchell, known for his role in shaping Texas’s abortion ban, has revised the complaint to incorporate HB 7, which became effective on December 4. Under the new legislation, private citizens are granted the authority to initiate lawsuits against individuals or entities involved in the manufacturing, distribution, mailing, or provision of abortion-inducing drugs within or outside of Texas. Plaintiffs are entitled to pursue a minimum of $100,000 for each violation encountered.
The revised legal document demands a minimum of $75,000 in damages and requests a court injunction to prevent Coeytaux from prescribing or supplying abortion medication in Texas.
In a recent lawsuit, attorney Mitchell stated, “If discovery reveals that Coeytaux has mailed, transported, delivered, prescribed, or provided any abortion-inducing drug to any person or location in Texas since the enactment of HB 7 on December 4, 2025, then Mr. Rodriguez will pursue recovery of at least $100,000.00 for each of those statutory violations.”
Critics have called HB 7 a “bounty hunter law,” arguing that it encourages private enforcement. Women utilizing abortion medication are protected from legal action under the statute, as are those who take the drugs following miscarriages. Plaintiffs not directly connected to the fetus can only get 10% of the damages; the rest goes to charity.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Coeytaux, has condemned the lawsuit.
Officials have expressed strong opposition, stating that the law contradicts the core values held by many Texans. “It undermines freedom, privacy, and family values,” stated Marc Hearron, associate litigation director for the organization. He stated that lawmakers are working to restrict access to medication that is considered “so safe, effective, and widely used across the United States.”
The use of abortion pills has significantly increased in the U.S. The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has significantly increased the use of abortion Recent estimates suggest that Texas residents placed approximately 19,000 orders for abortion medication after the state's initial abortion ban came into effect. Texas, along with Florida, filed a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration in December, challenging the agency's approval of mifepristone.
Darcy Caballero, representing Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, stated that certain women pursue abortion pills upon receiving fatal fetal diagnoses, leading to what she described as “a real difficult choice.”
The upcoming case is poised to examine the extent to which out-of-state “shield laws” may protect providers from enforcement actions by Texas.
.jpg)
.jpg)
