Law Commentary - California Edition
Texas Sues NY Doctor for Providing Abortion Services in the State Via Telehealth
The state of Texas filed a lawsuit against a medical doctor located in New York, claiming the defendant “violates Texas law by providing abortion-inducing drugs to Texans through telehealth.” Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter, M.D., is not licensed to practice medicine, including telemedicine, in Texas, according to the civil complaint submitted by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Dr. Carpenter is the co-founder of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine. In New York, where Dr. Carpenter practices, it is legal to provide both in-person abortion procedures and/or mailed abortion medicine.
The new Texas lawsuit, the first of its kind, is proceeding along the grounds that the State may sue out-of-state doctors or anyone who prescribes abortion medications to Texas residents. The complaint cites section 171.063(b-1) of the Texas Health & Safety Code, which states that “A manufacturer, supplier, physician or any other person may not provide to a patient any abortion-inducing drug by courier, delivery, or mail service.”
In the complaint, Texas asks the court to “enjoin Carpenter from continuing to operate outside the bounds of the law and impose civil penalties for her violation of Texas law.”
The Lone Star state is seeking “monetary relief of $250,000 or less and non-monetary relief” and claims that “this court has personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.042.”
The doctor is accused of prescribing abortion medication to a 20-year-old Texas woman. In Texas, doctors are prohibited from providing abortion medications via any mail or other delivery service. The state’s restrictive abortion health and safety laws require a doctor “performing or inducing an abortion to be licensed to practice medicine in the state of Texas and they must hold admitting privileges at a hospital no further than 30 miles from the location where the abortion procedure takes place.” This geographic mandate means that Dr. Carpenter has no license to perform abortion-related services in the state. In addition, the controversial Texas law requires a physician “to physically examine a patient in person before providing abortion-inducing medications and schedule a follow-up visit to confirm the pregnancy has been fully terminated and to assess any continued blood loss.”
However, in New York, where Dr. Carpenter practices, it is legal to provide both in-person abortion procedures and/or mailed abortion medicine within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Legal documents filed with the court state that the patient in question became pregnant in mid-May 2024, then wanted an abortion, and procured the abortion medicine using the telehealth option offered by Dr. Carpenter. After taking the prescribed abortion medicine, which was mailed to the Texas resident, she suffered from “hemorrhage or severe bleeding” that required medical intervention and was taken to a Collin County hospital for treatment. The lawsuit seeks civil monetary penalties of up to $250,000 and requests the court enjoin Dr. Carpenter from violating Texas law. No criminal charges have been filed against Dr. Carpenter by the state of Texas.
Despite the Texas lawsuit against the New York licensed doctor, the state of New York has enacted a shield law as a protective measure due to the overturning of Roe v Wade. Under the law in New York, state officials “should not cooperate with states attempting to sue or prosecute healthcare providers for providing legal abortion care, including prescribing or mailing abortion medications. In the event of legal action, New York’s shield law allows an individual to counter-sue the plaintiff to recover damages.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James released a statement regarding the new Texas lawsuit against the New York doctor, reiterating the official stance of New York in protecting abortion rights and doctors who perform the procedure or offer abortion medications.
“Medication abortion has been used by millions of people since it was first approved by the FDA nearly 25 years ago. For years, we have seen unwarranted attempts to restrict access to these medications, with anti-choice actors even bringing the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Ms. James in the statement. “Time and time again, these attempts have failed because the fact remains that medication abortion is safe, thoroughly tested, and effective. Restricting access to these pills doesn’t help Americans; it harms them. That’s why we enacted our shield law, establishing New York as a beacon of reproductive freedom and protecting our providers from out-of-state anti-choice attacks. I will continue to protect people’s reproductive rights and access to life-saving health care.”
In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton disagreed, saying, "In Texas, we treasure the health and lives of the mothers and babies, and this is why out-of-state doctors may not illegally and dangerously prescribe abortion-inducing drugs to Texas residents."
About eight Democratic-controlled state legislatures have enacted shield laws. This is the first time these shield laws, which protect physicians and medical firms from being sued by anti-abortion states, will be tested.
Given the competing state laws, it is debatable what effect a Texas court ruling would actually have.
© 2024 LawCommentary.com. All rights reserved.
