A Texas man, Jerry Rodriguez, has initiated a significant federal wrongful death lawsuit against Dr. Remy Coeytaux, an abortion provider in California, claiming that Coeytaux “murdered” his unborn children by sending abortion pills across state lines. This case, known as Rodriguez v. Coeytaux, represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battles surrounding abortion, particularly how anti-abortion litigants might navigate legal protections—specifically, abortion shield laws enacted in liberal states. Filed in the Southern District of Texas on July 20, the lawsuit alleges that Coeytaux facilitated illegal self-managed abortions by mailing abortion-inducing medications, which Rodriguez claims were used to terminate two pregnancies involving his girlfriend.
Rodriguez’s accusations are rooted in a $150 Venmo transaction labeled “Aed axes,” which he interprets as a phonetic approximation of “Aid Access,” a network that aids women in obtaining abortion pills. The lawsuit specifies that the initial abortion took place in September 2024, at Rodriguez’s girlfriend’s mother’s residence, followed by a second termination in January 2025 at the estranged husband’s home. Rodriguez alleges that ultrasound images provided as evidence corroborate the second pregnancy, identifying the fetus as a boy. He seeks more than $75,000 in damages, the establishment of a national class of “fathers of unborn children,” and an injunction prohibiting Coeytaux from mailing abortion drugs in contravention of federal or state law.
The legal framework underpinning this lawsuit has garnered substantial attention because it revives the long-dormant Comstock Act, an 1873 federal law that prohibits mailing materials related to abortion. This act has not been enforced for over a century but remains in effect. Jonathan Mitchell, an attorney known for his role in crafting Texas’s heartbeat law, represents Rodriguez and argues that Coeytaux violated the Comstock Act by mailing abortion pills from California to Texas. Additionally, the lawsuit contends that Coeytaux committed felony murder under Texas law by assisting in illegal abortions, citing numerous contraventions of Texas statutes mandating in-state physician administration of abortion drugs following informed consent and ultrasound procedures.
This lawsuit is being characterized as a strategic avenue to challenge abortion shield laws that have been established in states like California, New York, and Washington, designed to protect abortion providers from legal repercussions in treating out-of-state patients. By filing a civil wrongful death suit in federal court, Rodriguez’s legal team circumvents these shield laws, potentially creating a novel pathway for anti-abortion advocates to confront providers operating outside of their respective states. The pioneering nature of this lawsuit may set a precedent for similar legal actions.
Currently, Dr. Coeytaux has yet to respond to the lawsuit, and there has been no public commentary from him. Expected legal challenges may arise from pro-abortion groups who could contest both the interpretation of the Comstock Act and the legitimacy of private individuals pursuing wrongful death claims linked to out-of-state telehealth prescriptions. This case could reshape the landscape of abortion litigation by establishing a new model that permits anti-abortion litigants to target the supply chains of abortion pills, especially in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs.
The outcome of Rodriguez v. Coeytaux may have broad implications for the ongoing abortion debate in the United States, particularly with respect to the powers of individual states in regulating abortion access and the potential legal risks faced by providers who operate across state lines. It reflects the deepening divide between states with progressive abortion policies and those with conservative restrictions. Should this lawsuit succeed, it could inspire a wave of similar cases across the country, significantly influencing the future of reproductive rights and the regulation of telehealth services tied to abortion access. The legal and political ramifications of this case will likely be closely monitored by both pro-life and pro-choice advocates, as it may either bolster state protections for abortion access or pave the way for stricter controls on telehealth abortion services nationally.
