A Galveston County man has filed the first lawsuit leveraging a new Texas law that allows private citizens to sue abortion pill providers for up to $100,000 in damages, the Texas Tribune reports.
The lawsuit, filed by Jerry Rodriguez, targets Dr. Remy Coeytaux, a California-based physician accused of providing abortion-inducing medication to Rodriguez’s partner.
The legal action represents the first application of House Bill 7 (HB 7), a statute that went into effect on Dec. 4, 2025, targeting the manufacturing, distribution, and mailing of abortion drugs into or out of Texas.
Rodriguez alleges that his partner terminated two pregnancies—one in September 2024 and another in January 2025—using pills provided by Coeytaux. According to the filing, the medication was ordered by the woman’s ex-husband. Rodriguez, who claims he was the father of both fetuses, is seeking at least $75,000 in damages and a court order to stop Coeytaux from prescribing or providing abortion drugs in Texas.
The sources indicate that Rodriguez’s attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, who was a primary architect of Texas’ broader abortion bans, updated the lawsuit to include HB 7 as a tool to compel payment. Mitchell stated that if discovery proves Coeytaux provided drugs in Texas after the law’s effective date, Rodriguez will seek at least $100,000 for each statutory violation.
Provision HB 7 has been labeled a “bounty hunter law” by opponents because it awards successful plaintiffs a minimum of $100,000. Under the statute:
Plaintiffs not directly related to the fetus are entitled to only 10% of the award, with the remaining 90% required to be given to a charity.
Women who take the abortion pills are explicitly exempt from being sued under the bill, as are those who use them following a miscarriage.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing Coeytaux, condemned the suit as a strategic attack on women’s bodily autonomy. Marc Hearron, the center’s associate litigation director, described the law as “anti-freedom, anti-privacy, and anti-family,” arguing it is an attempt to intimidate doctors providing safe and effective medication.
The case raises complex questions regarding state shield laws. California has protections in place for medical providers facing out-of-state investigations, similar to laws in New York and Delaware. While a New York judge dismissed a previous Texas challenge in October, Rodriguez’s legal team has pointed to language in HB 7 specifically designed to block defendants from filing counteractions.
Additionally, the lawsuit invokes the Comstock Act, an 1873 anti-obscenity law. While some experts argue the law is unenforceable after a century of non-use, Mitchell contends it can be used to federally criminalize the mailing of abortion pills.