You know how things are always heating up in Texas courts, especially when it comes to abortion? Well, a new lawsuit from Galveston County just cranked that heat way up, and it's grabbing national attention. We’re seeing the very first use of a controversial Texas law, House Bill 7 (HB 7), to target a California doctor accused of providing abortion pills. This isn't just a regular civil suit; it’s a big deal. Jerry Rodriguez, a Galveston man, is suing Dr. Remy Coeytaux, alleging the doctor provided abortion-inducing pills to Rodriguez’s then-partner. The twist? Rodriguez claims he was the father of two pregnancies that were terminated after his partner allegedly took these pills in late 2024 and early 2025. He's saying her ex-husband ordered these pills from Dr. Coeytaux. Rodriguez’s lawyer is Jonathan Mitchell, a name you might recognize. He's the legal mind behind Texas’s initial abortion ban, the one that let private citizens sue anyone who "aids or abets" an abortion. Now, he's using HB 7 as an extra hammer in this updated lawsuit. Mitchell’s not just looking for damages; he wants to stop Dr. Coeytaux from ever providing abortion pills in Texas again. So, what exactly is HB 7? It kicked in back on December 4th. This law lets *any* private citizen sue someone who makes, sends, mails, or gives abortion medication to or from Texas. If you win one of these lawsuits, you're looking at a minimum of $100,000 in damages. Think of it like a legal bounty, which is why critics often call it a "bounty hunter law." The interesting part is that if you're not directly related to the fetus, you only get ten percent of that award, and the rest goes to a charity you pick. And here’s a key detail: women who *take* the pills aren't targets of these lawsuits. Same goes for women who take them after a miscarriage. Mitchell is making it clear: if they find Dr. Coeytaux sent *any* abortion-inducing drug into Texas since HB 7 started, Rodriguez will go for at least $100,000 for each time it happened. That could add up fast. The Center for Reproductive Rights is defending Dr. Coeytaux. They see this lawsuit as a calculated move to further restrict women's choices and access to safe care. Marc Hearron, an associate litigation director there, put it pretty bluntly, saying this law "goes against everything Texans value. It’s anti-freedom, anti-privacy, and anti-family." He suggests lawmakers are trying to scare doctors and patients away from abortion pills because they're so effective and widely used. It’s no secret that after Roe v. Wade got overturned, demand for abortion pills shot up, especially in states like Texas where abortion is heavily restricted. Estimates suggest around 19,000 Texans ordered abortion pills from out-of-state providers or online pharmacies after the initial ban. Texas is really pushing hard on abortion pill restrictions. Remember, the state even joined Florida in suing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its approval of mifepristone, a commonly used abortion drug. This legal fight isn't just about this one case. It brings up big questions about how states can regulate medical practices across state lines. Texas has already sued out-of-state providers in New York and Delaware. New York's judge tossed out Texas's case, thanks to New York’s "shield laws" which protect medical providers from investigations and lawsuits from other states. Delaware also has similar protections, and California does too. California's shield laws could offer Dr. Coeytaux a strong defense. But Mitchell and the writers of HB 7 thought ahead. They included language in the bill specifically designed to stop counter-actions by out-of-state doctors. It’s a legal chess match, plain and simple. Another wild card in this lawsuit is the Comstock Act. Rodriguez alleges Dr. Coeytaux violated this 19th-century anti-obscenity law. Now, this law hasn't really been enforced in over a hundred years. Some legal experts say it's completely outdated and unenforceable. Others, including Mitchell, argue it could still be used to criminally charge people for mailing abortion pills across state lines. If Mitchell can somehow revive this old law, it would be a huge shift in legal strategy. This case shows us just how far Texas is willing to go to enforce its abortion bans, even reaching beyond its borders. It’s not just about what happens in Texas anymore; it's about what Texas believes it can control elsewhere. The outcomes of these cases will shape the future of reproductive rights and interstate law. What happens here could set a precedent for similar disputes all over the country. Keep your eyes on this one.