Less than a day after Democrats swept statewide offices in Texas, Attorney General‑elect Nathan Johnson told The Texas Tribune that his office will no longer pursue lawsuits against physicians in other states who prescribe medication to end pregnancies. Johnson said the practice, begun under former Attorney General Ken Paxton, turned Texas law into a “judicially absurd” instrument of persecution, intimidation, harassment and political showboating.
Why the change matters
Under Paxton, Texas sued out‑of‑state doctors who mailed abortion medication, a strategy that many abortion‑rights advocates argued chilled access to care. Those suits often ran into shield laws in so‑called “blue” states, which protect physicians from being sued for providing lawful medical services to out‑of‑state patients. Johnson said he will honor those shield laws and cease filing new suits, stating, “I will not pursue the judicially absurd position that Texas law has extra‑territorial effect.”
Implications for the statewide abortion ban
While Johnson’s decision removes one obstacle to obtaining medication, the four‑year‑old near‑total abortion ban remains in place. Governor‑elect Gina Hinojosa, a Democrat, cannot repeal the ban with a single executive action. She has indicated she will focus on narrowing the law’s application, such as ending penalties for doctors who perform life‑saving abortions—a measure already addressed by the legislature last year.
University of Houston political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus explained that Hinojosa can influence how the law is implemented and how exceptions are interpreted, potentially shaping future restrictions. However, anti‑abortion advocates, including Texas Right to Life president John Seago, warn that Democratic leadership could undermine long‑standing programs that counsel pregnant women away from abortions, such as the former Alternatives to Abortion program, now called Thriving Texas Families.
Potential budget and agency impacts
Thriving Texas Families, which distributes more than $200 million to private contractors for counseling and related services, could face funding cuts or restructuring under the new administration. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), which oversees the program, is also approaching a Sunset review that allows lawmakers to reshape agency budgets and priorities. Critics fear the review could lead to reduced funding for the program and changes in agency leadership.
Additionally, the Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Review Committee, part of the Texas Department of State Health Services, is awaiting a biennial report that will likely examine deaths occurring after the abortion ban took effect. Advocates have called for the committee to gain authority to review abortion‑related deaths, a request that has yet to be granted.
Reactions from both sides
John Seago expressed confidence that, despite Johnson’s stance, other states will continue to challenge attempts to block medication by mail. He also noted that Texas’s “bounty hunter” law, which permits private lawsuits against providers of abortion medication, is expected to remain unchanged in the upcoming session.
Reproductive‑rights groups remain vigilant. Raven E. Freeborn, executive director of Avow Texas, said her organization will pursue new legislation to expand abortion access, emphasizing an “unapologetic vision of abortion access without exceptions.” She warned that the GOP’s decades‑long effort to restrict abortions will require a sustained, bold response.
What’s next?
Johnson’s policy shift signals a departure from the aggressive enforcement tactics of the Paxton era, but the broader legal landscape surrounding Texas’s abortion ban remains contentious. As the new Democratic leadership settles in, the state will watch closely how legislative and agency actions shape the practical application of the ban and related health‑care programs.
Original reporting: Texas Tribune (HLL/CB) — read the source article.
