A New York judge on Friday dismissed a Texas lawsuit aimed at enforcing penalties against a New York abortionist who illegally mailed abortion pills to a Texas woman.
The ruling deals a blow to pro-life efforts to hold out-of-state abortionists accountable for violating strict bans.
Justice David M. Gandin of the state Supreme Court in Ulster County ruled in favor of Acting County Clerk Taylor Bruck, who had refused to file a Texas court judgment against Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter. The decision shields Carpenter under New York’s abortion shield law, which pro-life advocates decry as a radical measure enabling the destruction of unborn children across state lines.
The Texas lawsuit, filed by Attorney General Ken Paxton in July, sought to compel Bruck to enforce a December 2024 Texas court order requiring Carpenter to pay over $113,000 in penalties and permanently barring her from sending abortion drugs to Texas residents.
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!
Carpenter, not licensed in Texas, had prescribed and mailed the pills via telemedicine to a 20-year-old woman in Collin County, resulting in the death of the woman’s unborn child and her hospitalization with serious medical complications.
Paxton, a staunch pro-life AG, condemned the arrangement in his lawsuit, stating, “Dr. Carpenter is a radical abortionist who must face justice, not get legal protection from New York liberals intent on ending the lives of as many unborn children as they can. No matter where they reside, pro-abortion extremists who send drugs designed to kill the unborn into Texas will face the full force of our state’s pro-life laws.”
He emphasized the human cost, adding, “In this case, an out-of-state doctor violated the law and caused serious harm to this patient. This doctor prescribed abortion-inducing drugs—unauthorized, over telemedicine—causing her patient to end up in the hospital with serious complications. In Texas, we treasure the health and lives of mothers and babies.”
Gandin’s ruling affirmed that “Carpenter’s conduct falls squarely within the definition of ‘legally protected health activity,’” and described her actions as “the precise type of conduct (the shield law) was designed to protect.”
The judge sidestepped Paxton’s constitutional arguments under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, noting the Texas AG had not sought an independent declaration on the shield law’s validity.
Bruck, who twice denied Paxton’s requests to file the judgment and summons, hailed the outcome as validation for New York’s protective stance.
“The decision confirms what we had assumed all along — that we should not have filed the Texas judgment. The law seemed obvious to us, but since it was untested, certain people had questions about it,” Bruck told The Times-Union. He added, “We’re fortunate to live in New York state and have a Senate and Assembly that had the foresight to pass the shield law. In this first test case, it worked exactly as intended.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James intervened in September to defend the shield law, asserting, “Texas has no authority in New York, and no power to impose its cruel abortion ban here.”
Pro-life leaders view the dismissal as a dangerous escalation in the post-Roe v. Wade landscape, where blue states like New York actively undermine red states’ protections for the unborn. Texas, which bans most allows private citizens to sue providers for aiding illegal procedures.
Paxton’s suit, filed under that framework, highlighted how New York’s shield law creates a haven for abortionists to traffic deadly chemicals into pro-life jurisdictions, endangering women and children alike.
