Texas Father Sues California Doctor Over Abortion Pill Distribution Under New State Law

What's happening

A Texas father, Jerry Rodriguez, has initiated a lawsuit against a California-based physician, Dr. Remy Coeytaux, accusing the doctor of facilitating illegal abortions by mailing abortion pills to the estranged husband of Rodriguez’s girlfriend. This legal action marks the first use of a recently enacted Texas law that permits residents to sue out-of-state prescribers and distributors of mifepristone, the medication commonly used for abortion, when it violates Texas abortion drug restrictions. The case highlights the growing legal and ethical tensions surrounding abortion access in the United States, especially as states adopt varying and often conflicting reproductive health laws.

The lawsuit alleges that Dr. Coeytaux knowingly sent mifepristone to Kendal Garza’s estranged husband, who then used the medication to terminate two pregnancies. According to Rodriguez, Garza was initially enthusiastic about her pregnancies but was pressured by her estranged spouse to end them using the mailed abortion pills. The suit claims that Coeytaux’s actions directly caused the deaths of Rodriguez’s unborn children, framing it as a violation of Texas law that prohibits abortion drug distribution. This legal move is part of a broader Texas strategy to enforce strict abortion regulations by empowering private citizens to hold out-of-state providers accountable.

Texas’s law, which came into effect in December 2025, is designed to combat the distribution of abortion pills from states with more permissive abortion policies. It allows individuals to seek damages of at least $100,000 for each violation, incentivizing private enforcement. This approach mirrors the state’s 2021 heartbeat bill, which similarly relied on civil lawsuits by private citizens to restrict abortion access. Rodriguez’s complaint not only targets Dr. Coeytaux but also indicates plans to include manufacturers and distributors of the abortion medication as defendants, suggesting a broad legal challenge against the abortion pill supply chain.

The background of the case reveals a complicated personal situation. Rodriguez and Garza’s relationship was strained, with Garza’s estranged husband allegedly exerting pressure to terminate the pregnancies. The lawsuit states that Garza took the abortion pills in September 2024 for the first pregnancy and again in January 2025 for the second, despite Rodriguez’s objections. The suit also claims that Garza had to perform the abortion herself and subsequently bury their son, underscoring the emotional and personal stakes involved. This case raises questions about coercion and consent in the context of abortion pill use.

What's at stake

Critics of the Texas law argue that such lawsuits may increase stigma and legal risks for women seeking reproductive health care, potentially deterring them from accessing safe medical options. They also express concern about the safety of mifepristone, noting that approximately 10 percent of women taking the drug experience serious adverse events like hemorrhage or infection. Additionally, studies cited in the lawsuit suggest that nearly 70 percent of abortions may be unwanted or coerced, highlighting the complex circumstances surrounding abortion decisions. These concerns fuel ongoing debates about the regulation and accessibility of abortion medications.

Supporters of the Texas legislation maintain that it is necessary to protect unborn lives and enforce state regulations on abortion. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has actively pursued legal actions against providers of abortion pills, issuing cease and desist orders to several distributors, including those affiliated with Dr. Coeytaux’s organization, Aid Access. Paxton has described the shipment of abortion pills into Texas as illegal trafficking and has threatened further legal measures. This lawsuit fits within a broader trend of states with restrictive abortion laws targeting out-of-state providers through civil litigation.

The legal landscape surrounding abortion in the U.S. remains deeply divided, with states adopting increasingly divergent policies. Texas’s novel approach of enabling private citizens to sue out-of-state prescribers represents a significant escalation in enforcement tactics. The outcome of Rodriguez’s lawsuit could set important precedents for how states regulate abortion pill distribution and hold providers accountable across state lines. It also raises questions about the intersection of personal rights, state sovereignty, and access to reproductive health services.

Looking ahead, the case will likely proceed through Texas courts, where it may face challenges regarding jurisdiction and the applicability of Texas law to out-of-state actors. The lawsuit’s progress will be closely watched as it could influence future legal strategies in abortion-related cases nationwide. Observers should monitor whether the courts uphold the Texas law’s provisions and how this affects the availability of abortion pills, especially in states with conflicting laws. The evolving legal battles underscore the ongoing national debate over reproductive rights and the complex implications of state-level abortion regulations.

Why it matters

The lawsuit represents the first use of a new Texas law allowing residents to sue out-of-state abortion pill providers. It enables plaintiffs to seek substantial financial damages, potentially deterring providers from mailing abortion pills into Texas. Critics warn it may increase legal risks and stigma for women seeking reproductive health care.

Supporters argue the law is essential to protect unborn children and enforce state abortion restrictions. The case highlights concerns about coercion and safety related to abortion pill use. It reflects broader national conflicts over abortion access and state jurisdiction.

The lawsuit’s outcome could influence future enforcement of abortion drug laws across state lines.

Key facts & context

Jerry Rodriguez filed the lawsuit against Dr. Remy Coeytaux, a California physician linked to Aid Access. The Texas law took effect in December 2025 and targets out-of-state abortion pill prescribers and distributors. Mifepristone is the medication involved, commonly used for medication abortions.

The law allows damages of at least $100,000 per violation. Rodriguez alleges Coeytaux mailed abortion pills to the estranged husband of his girlfriend, Kendal Garza. Garza reportedly took the pills under pressure, terminating two pregnancies in 2024 and early 2025.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has issued cease and desist orders to abortion pill providers and threatened further legal action. Critics cite that about 10% of women taking mifepristone experience serious adverse effects. Studies suggest nearly 70% of abortions may be unwanted or coerced, raising concerns about consent.

The lawsuit plans to include manufacturers and distributors of the abortion drug as defendants. This legal action follows a trend of states using civil lawsuits to enforce abortion restrictions. The case could set precedent for how states regulate abortion pill distribution and cross-state enforcement.

Timeline & key developments

2026-02-03: Texas Father Sues California Doctor Over Abortion Pill Distribution. Additional reporting on this topic is available in our broader archive and will continue to shape this timeline as new developments emerge.

Primary sources

• capitol.texas.gov PDF
• guides.sll.texas.gov document
• accessdata.fda.gov PDF
• texasattorneygeneral.gov document

Further reading & references

• (Additional background links will appear here as we cover this topic.)