Texas is Suing A Delaware Nurse Practitioner Over Abortion Pills

1.27.26

- Texas is Suing a Delaware Abortion Provider

- Trump Comes for Illinois

- As Maternal Mortality Surges, Alabama Pitches Robot OBGYNs

- HHS Bans Fetal Tissue Research—But Only From Abortions…?

- Ballot Box 2026

- The ‘Pro-Life’ Party, Everyone

---

Texas is Suing a Delaware Abortion Provider

Texas is suing another abortion provider for allegedly mailing pills into the state. Attorney General Ken Paxton is already suing New York’s Dr. Margaret Carpenter over similar allegations, while Louisiana seeks to extradite and arrest both Carpenter and California’s Dr. Rémy Coeytaux. This time, Paxton is suing Delaware nurse practitioner Debra Lynch of Her Safe Harbor.

Unlike past suits and charges—which focused on specific patients who used the pills—Paxton is suing over Lynch’s own words. The complaint states that “Lynch has boasted to media outlets” that she mails abortion medication into the state; Paxton urges the court to block the provider from “continuing to operate their illegal scheme and impose the highest civil penalties authorized by law for each violation of Texas law.”

Law professor and author Mary Ziegler says, “It doesn’t sound like they know when any of the abortions happened.”

Last summer, Paxton threatened Lynch and several other abortion providers with $100,000 fines for offering telemedicine abortion services. Afterward, Lynch publicly said she was undeterred—and that Paxton’s actions sparked over 250 more requests for pills from Texans.

Since then, attacks on shield laws and telemedicine access have escalated: Texas’ HB 7—a sweeping bill to criminalize anyone who sends abortion pills into Texas—has taken effect, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill is trying to extradite two blue state abortion providers, Republican legislators are calling the safety of abortion pills and telemedicine into question, and anti-abortion legal activists like Jonathan Mitchell are increasingly targeting blue state providers in court.

Delaware is a shield state; but each shield state has different protections. And as The Guardian notes, legal experts have questioned whether Delaware’s law always protects providers shipping pills across state lines.

This is a developing story and we’ll have more details in the coming days. It’s not the first case of an abortion-banned state targeting a blue state abortion provider, and certainly won’t be the last. And the fact that Paxton is using Lynch’s quotes to media outlets also raises questions about conservatives’ ongoing attacks on pro-choice speech.

For now, reference some of our previous and ongoing coverage of similar cases, here, here, here, and here.

Trump Comes for Illinois

Remember how Republicans spent years assuring us they wanted to kill Roe and leave abortion to the states? Now, the Trump administration is going after Illinois for daring to require that health workers do their job and inform pregnant patients of their option to seek abortion care. Unless Illinois repeals this policy within 30 days, Trump’s HHS is threatening to pull the state’s federal health dollars—namely, $20 billion in Medicaid funds. All to send a message on abortion.

This isn’t a new battle: Anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers and ‘pro-life’ health workers have long pushed back on any policies that require telling women about abortion and birth control. The first Trump administration also issued a ‘conscience protection’ policy in 2019 which was repealed by Biden, but appears slated to be reinstated.

We know what Trump’s decision to target Illinois, right now, is really about. Friction between the White House and anti-abortion leaders has been at an all-time high lately. Organizations were outraged by Trump’s recent call for Republicans to be “flexible” on abortion coverage amid ACA negotiations, and they’re furious over the administration’s inaction on abortion pills and telemedicine.

In turn, anti-abortion leaders have been insisting that unless things change, they could sit out the crucial 2026 elections and hang Republicans out to dry. Earlier this month, the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Patrick Brown (the organization leading the charge on junk science ‘studies’ about abortion pills), told The Hill, “Pro-lifers feel the sense that Trump is happy to let them go separate ways.” National Right to Life’s Carol Tobias went so far as to characterize their relationship with Trump as “a roller coaster.” And Students for Life’s Kristi Hamrick said of Republicans (including Trump) who don’t sufficiently attack abortion:

“We’re making our list and checking it twice and we’re going to find out who’s naughty or nice.”

On Trump’s threats to Illinois, the Post notes: “The action against Illinois is a nod to religious conservatives, who at times have felt sidelined by the second Trump administration.” Take the administration’s targeting of Illinois for what it is: red meat for the base.

As Maternal Mortality Surges, Alabama Pitches Robot OBGYNs

Last week, we told you about a new study that found abortion bans have made pregnancy substantially more deadly in the U.S. A key takeaway? “Mortality risk from pregnancy… is 44 to 70 times higher than the mortality risk from abortion.”

This comes as maternal mortality is skyrocketing in states with abortion bans: patients are being denied vital healthcare, OBGYNs are leaving banned states en masse, labor and delivery wards are shuttering, and maternal health deserts are widening.

So as you can imagine, communities are desperate to recruit and retain reproductive healthcare specialists. This is true especially in states like Alabama, which consistently ranks among the nation’s worst in maternal mortality. Yet in the midst of this crisis, the state’s response has been astoundingly callous: rather than trying to bring in new healthcare providers, Alabama wants robot OBGYNs.

Alabama may get “digital obstetric regionalization and telerobotic ultrasounds” using funding it received from Republicans’ so-called Big, Beautiful Bill. This is the same bill that slashes Medicaid by around $1 trillion, threatens to shutter five hospitals in rural Alabama, and accompanies GOP healthcare attacks that could boot 150,000 Alabamians off their insurance.

But to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, who announced the robot news at a White House panel, pregnant women’s lives are akin to a science fair experiment:

“Alabama has no OBGYNs in many of their counties, so they’re doing something pretty cool. They’re actually having robots do ultrasounds on these pregnant moms.”

Actual OBGYNs in Alabama are sounding the alarm. They point out that if complications arise—or if ultrasounds reveal threats to the patient’s pregnancy—patients would still need and be without care from an actual physician. Dr. LoRissia Autery, an OB-GYN at Walker Women’s Specialists, explained:

“There may be a case where a mom may have no fluid and that patient needs to go to a hospital, but if you’re in a part of the county that doesn’t have a hospital that has obstetrical services, now you have to drive an hour to an hour and a half to receive those services from a physician that did not do the ultrasound.”

It’s an awful, dehumanizing plan and, for lack of better words, reads very much like a dumb person’s idea of a smart person’s plan.

The reproductive health infrastructure of this country—especially in poor states like Alabama—was already in crisis before Dobbs. Now, Republicans are cosplaying as innovative saviors, and trotting out “pretty cool” robot OBGYNs to clean up a mess they made.

HHS Bans Fetal Tissue Research—But Only From Abortions…?

Months after Trump’s Health and Human Services Department pledged to withhold over $20 million from projects alleged to use human fetal tissue (HFT), HHS just announced that HFTs from “elective abortion“ will no longer be allowed in agency-funded research.

HHS Secretary RFK Jr. said, “The science supports this shift, the ethics demand it, and we will apply this standard consistently across the Department.”

Did the “ethics demand” that the administration withhold funding a cure for childhood brain cancer? Because Abortion, Every Day discovered that was one of the projects the agency bragged about defunding. We also have HFT research to thank for vaccines and treatments for Zika virus, HIV, covid, measles, chickenpox, diabetes, infertility, shingles, and more.

Ironically, HHS announced the policy change on the day of the March for Life.

In addition to the blatant anti-science nightmare of it all, what stands out here is the ban on tissue from “elective” abortions.

HHS hasn’t specified how the agency will distinguish whether HFTs come from “elective abortions”—or whether there’s a method that will be used to differentiate potential tissue from ‘non-elective’ abortions.

The National Institutes of Health, which distributes most HHS medical research funding, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from AED about whether its use of the word “elective” means that some fetal tissue will be accepted, and—if so—how the federal government will determine what kind of abortions qualify. We’ll update you if we hear back.

Remember: anti-abortion leaders’ use of the word ‘elective’ to describe abortions stems from their broader goal of policing abortion patients’ intent, and separating ‘good’ abortions from ‘bad’ abortions. Increasingly, anti-abortion politicians suggest that all abortions are frivolous ‘elective’ abortions—and that abortion is never medically necessary.

Ballot Box 2026

You’re sick of hearing it and we’re sick of saying it, but this year’s elections could rank among the most important in our lifetime—especially for abortion rights, and especially at the state level.

In Iowa, for example, a competitive Democratic primary for the state’s U.S. Senate race is underway, with state Sen. Zach Wahls squaring off against state Rep. Josh Turek—and abortion rights are at the forefront of the race.

Why? Since 2024, the state has enforced a six-week abortion ban. But Turek’s voting record includes voting for a bill that boosted funding for CPCs, missing a key vote on the state’s abortion ban during special session in 2023, and in 2025, missing a vote on anti-abortion ‘Baby Olivia’ legislation. Planned Parenthood notably did not endorse Turek when he ran for reelection in 2024.

Wahls, by contrast, has introduced a slate of legislation to protect and expand reproductive rights—including a package of bills to add an abortion rights constitutional amendment, and protections for contraception, IVF, and pregnant patients’ privacy.

Given these contrasts in the Democratic candidates’ records on reproductive rights, this is certainly a race to keep an eye on. If Turek wins the nomination, he won’t even be the only high-profile Democratic candidate with a murky abortion record. Just look to Florida, where former Republican Rep. David Jolly is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for governor, despite his fairly recent anti-abortion positions.

Speaking of Florida: Politico reports that abortion has “left center stage” in the state since the defeat of an abortion rights ballot measure there in 2024, even as the measure won a decisive majority of votes. The outlet claims Democrats are expected to instead lean into “affordability”—as if abortion isn’t an existential economic issue! Abortion bans don’t just push people into poverty, but actively shape where people choose to live, work, and go to school.

Another state to watch? Arizona, four years after Democrats narrowly won the governor and attorney general’s offices by just a few thousand votes, the state was able to defeat a Civil War-era abortion ban and repeal the state’s 15-week ban too. But those victories are at stake with Gov. Katie Hobbs and AG Kris Mayes up for reelection this year. Rep. Andy Biggs, a frontrunner for the GOP nomination for governor, is one of the most vocal anti-abortion extremists and advocates for fetal personhood in Congress.

FWIW: We know exactly what’s at stake if the GOP wins in 2026—just look at last week’s March for Life, which saw groups like Unborn Babies Count, an organization that advocates for embryos to be counted as people in the U.S. Census, rub shoulders with top Republicans.

The ‘Pro-Life’ Party, Everyone

The ‘pro-life’ movement has stood unwavering by Trump for over a decade now—and their hypocrisy is so obvious, it sometimes feels pointless to identify it. Nevertheless, the recent extrajudicial killings of Minnesota residents by Trump’s ICE agents, and ICE’s escalating operations targeting immigrant children and families, mark a new low for what ‘pro-life’ activists will excuse.

MPR News has interesting commentary from local March for Life attendees on recent violence from ICE. One attendee told the outlet, “I say, from conception till natural death. Taking care of immigrants… they’re protecting their life also.” Another: “I don’t like all this stuff that’s happening… but I’m not taking sides anywhere.” (Helpful!) And another: “I don’t dislike ICE. I wish they were a little bit less intense, but they’re doing their job.”

No matter how much trepidation ‘pro-lifers’ may claim to feel about ICE, it can’t be said enough: Reproductive justice and immigrant justice are inextricably linked. Both require that all of us—regardless of citizenship status—can build our families on our own terms, in safe, healthy communities. ICE’s existence is entirely at odds with reproductive justice.

At the same time that Trump’s ICE agents are terrorizing communities, HHS has finalized a new, cruel policy to bar detained, immigrant minors from accessing abortion care. HHS’ Office of Refugee Resettlement announced the new rule on Friday, which will now advance through the federal rule-making process within the next few weeks, per the far-right Daily Signal.

What does this mean? Detained immigrant women and girls will be forced to stay pregnant and give birth, in facilities where they’re already facing well-documented mistreatment. We also know that many of their pregnancies may be the product of pervasive sexual violence along the southern border.

Speaking of horrific treatment of detained immigrants: Last week, The 19th shared the story of a mother in an ICE facility who has two U.S.-born children, including a breastfeeding infant. (It shouldn’t matter whether her children are U.S.-born, but it reminds us how relentless ICE is in its extremism.)

Cecil Elvir-Quinonez, who learned she was pregnant while in ICE custody, hasn’t been allowed to see a doctor in weeks—despite experiencing heavy bleeding and cramping. Nor has she been given a breast-pump. Unfortunately, her devastating plight isn’t isolated—if anything, it’s part of a broader, unacceptable pattern.