abortion

Seven Radical Abortion Bills Advance in Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee advanced seven radical abortion bills Wednesday that would protect, expand and fund the abortion industry.

Each bill passed in a 14-12, party line vote, with Democrat committee members voting for the proposed measures and Republican members voting against them.

“These laws would make Pennsylvania one of the most extreme abortion states in the country overnight,” Lexi Sneller, a Policy Analyst with the Pennsylvania Family Council, told the Daily Citizen.

Four of the bills would shield abortion providers from prosecution, both from pro-life states and women harmed by abortions.

HB 1643 and HB 1966 prohibit Pennsylvania courts from cooperating with out-of-state judgements and legal cases against in-state abortion providers.

HB 1640 prohibits abortion providers from disclosing records to state courts without patient permission. Sneller says this bill would protect abortion providers from in-state prosecutions if Pennsylvania’s government became more pro-life.

HB 1641 effectively requires insurance companies to provide medical liability insurance to healthcare companies that perform abortions on citizens from states where abortion is illegal.

Pennsylvania informed consent law requires a mother to receive counseling on alternatives to abortion before going through with the procedure. It also requires a mother to wait at least 24 hours between deciding on an abortion and receiving one.

HB 2005 would completely remove both requirements, allowing desperate mothers to receive abortions without any time to consider other options.

HB 670 would criminalize peaceful protest outside abortion clinics. Prohibited conduct would encompass violent and non-violent “physical obstruction and intimidation [of] or interference [with]” a person trying to enter an abortion clinic, including persuading someone not to receive an abortion.

The bill is modeled off the Biden administration’s FACE Act, which led to the imprisonment of dozens of peaceful, pro-life protesters in 2024.

The final bill, HB 1957, would amend the Pennsylvania state constitution give every “individual” the right to “exercise personal reproductive liberty,” including undergoing an abortion.

The amendment would impose strict scrutiny — the highest level of legal review — on current and future pro-life laws, effectively gutting Pennsylvania’s pro-life protections.

“It’s such a high bar that, colloquially, it’s referred to as ‘strict in theory, fatal in fact,’ meaning that very few laws survive challenge under this rigorous test,” Dr. Elizabeth Kirk, a law professor at The Catholic University of America, testified before the Judiciary Committee.

The amendment would further require taxpayers to fund elective abortions. It does not limit a mother’s “right” to abortion at a certain gestation, which means the amendment could be used to defend a “right” to abortion until birth.

Dr. Kirk also warned the amendment’s broad language could open the door for minors to receive abortions without their parents’ consent:

The plain text makes no distinction between adults and minors. It suggests that Pennsylvania courts may grant an absolute right to abortion or any other reproductive decisions, which substantially weakens the Commonwealth’s interest in protecting parental rights.

Planned Parenthood Advocates Pennsylvania celebrated the committee taking a “stand for health, dignity and freedom” on Instagram. But these bills do nothing to protect women’s health, dignity or freedom. Each one is oriented toward protecting the people who profit from performing abortions.

Enshrining a potentially unlimited “right” to abortion in the Pennsylvania constitution guarantees the existence of the lucrative abortion industry at the expense of women, babies and parental rights.

Eliminating Pennsylvania’s informed consent requirements and criminalizing people who encourage women to choose life increases the likelihood that business like Planned Parenthood will make money off vulnerable women.

Shielding abortion care providers from prosecution could prevent women from suing negligent doctors, which effectively eliminates abortion providers’ incentive to ensure women are fully informed and consenting before undergoing an abortion.

Pennsylvania abortion clinics routinely fail to meet health codes as it is. These clinics racked up a combined 600 health and building safety infractions between 2012 and 2025, according to Pennsylvania Family Council.

Between 2022 and 2025, 13 of 18 Pennsylvania “abortion mills” failed a health inspection — including nine Planned Parenthoods.

“The fact that Planned Parenthood is so excited about these bills shows they don’t care about women,” Sneller remarked. “They don’t care about choice. They don’t even care about freedom. They care about their bottom line and their ability to do whatever they want with as little restrictions as possible.”

Tax records show Planned Parenthood in Pennsylvania has gobbled up $45 million in taxpayer funding since 2012.  

The Daily Citizen encourages Pennsylvania readers to contact your representative and urge them to vote no on these radical, destructive bills.

Additional Articles and Resources

President Trump Pardons 23 Peaceful Pro-Life Protesters

House Subcommittee Examines Weaponization of FACE Act Against Pro-Life Supporters

Louisiana, ADF Challenge Biden-Era Abortion-By-Mail Scheme

FDA Approves Generic Abortion Pill Despite Ongoing Safety Review

FDA Launches Review of Abortion Pill and the Harms it Causes Women

Pro-Abortion States Beef Up Protections for Abortion Pill Prescribers

Texas Father Sues Out-of-State Abortionist for Killing His Preborn Children

Shield Laws Enable Chemical Abortion in Pro-Life States

Shield Law Abortion Providers Advertised Alongside Black Market Abortion Pills

Texas Sues New York Doctor for Prescribing Abortion Meds

New Abortion Pill Study Confirms Danger to Mothers

Woman Nearly Dies from Abortion Pill, Story Reflects Disturbing EPPC Data

Focus on the Family Broadcast: Abortion Pill Reversal

#AbortionChangesYou: A Case Study to Understand the Communicative Tensions in Women’s Medication Abortion Narratives (Health Communication)

The Abortion Pill Harms Women: Insurance Data Reveals One in Ten Patients Experiences a Serious Adverse Event (Ethics and Public Policy Center)

The VA Predicted Abortion Demand Would Increase Post-‘Dobbs.’ It Didn’t.

The Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) justified covering veterans’ elective abortions three years ago after predicting pro-life laws would supercharge abortion demand.

They were wrong — really wrong.

When the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in 2022, the VA expanded its abortion coverage to include elective abortions. Until then, it had only covered abortions to save the life of the mother.

Last month, the VA proposed repealing the 2022 abortion expansion rule, arguing it violates the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxes from paying for abortions, and improperly subverts the judiciary.

The objectional abortion expansion was only approved, the current VA explains, after the 2022 VA predicted more than 1,000 veterans and their family members would “need” elective abortions every year once states started banning abortion.

In reality, the VA has provided about 140 abortions per year since the Supreme Court reversed Roe. That means the 2022 VA’s prediction overshot reality by a whopping 86%.

The overinflated prediction allowed the VA to jerry-rig a “right to abortion” for veterans and their family members. The 2025 VA explains:

The stated reason for [expanding abortion rights] was a reaction to a Supreme Court decision…that was itself intended to prevent overreach.

Yet, the last administration used [the decision] to do the exact opposite, creating a purported Federal entitlement to abortion for veterans where none had existed before and without regard to State law.

In doing so, the administration predicted a high demand for VA abortions that never materialized.

The 2022 VA’s convenient “miscalculation” illustrates how the abortion industry benefits from making it seem like women, everywhere “need” abortions. The illusion of popularity makes policies supporting unregulated, elective abortions seem like “the will of the people.”

They’re not — and the VA proves the point. For three years, it has offered veterans and their families elective abortions on the cheap. If lack of abortion access has become such a crisis for women, why aren’t more taking advantage?

Take claims of ballooning abortion demand with a hefty grain of salt.  If abortionists in the government can juke the stats, you can bet pro-abortion organizations are doing the same.

Additional Articles and Resources

VA Moves to Rescind Taxpayer-Funded Abortion for Veterans

Pentagon Ends Paid Travel Expenses and Time Off for Abortion

Gen Z Women Rejected Pro-Abortion Messaging in 2024, Election Data Shows

Trump Signs Executive Order Limiting Taxpayer Funds for Abortion

U.S. Military to Receive Time Off and Travel Expenses to Obtain Abortions

BREAKING: Trump Administration Moves to Freeze, Cut Funding to Planned Parenthood

My Choice Network

Counseling Consultation Request Form

Considering Abortion?

Focus on the Family Pro-Life

VA Moves to Rescind Taxpayer-Funded Abortions for Veterans

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has moved to rescind a 2022 policy that expanded veterans’ medical benefits to include elective abortions.

The proposed rule change, which the department introduced on August 4, would prevent veterans and their families from getting elective abortions on taxpayers’ dime.

The VA provides medical services to veterans and their spouses, children, survivors and caregivers. Like all federal programs, it must comply with Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxes from funding elective abortions.

Until 2022, the VA only covered abortions when a pregnancy threatened the life of the mother. But when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the VA expanded its abortion coverage to include abortions of pregnancies:

  • Endangering the health of the mother.
  • Resulting from rape or incest.

VA’s medical coverage guidelines include “quality of life” and “quality of daily functional level” as measurements health. Under this definition, the department could provide an abortion to a woman who believed a baby decreased her quality of life.

The 2022 expansion of VA abortion coverage coincided with the Department of Defense’s (DOD) decision to pay active servicemembers and their families to take time off and travel to get an abortion.

The DOD rescinded the policy in January for violating the Hyde Amendment. The VA argues its 2022 abortion rules should be rescinded on the same grounds.

“The [2022 rule change] contradicted decades of Federal policy against forced taxpayer funding for abortion,” it notes in a filing defending the proposed revisions.

Misuse of tax-payer money is just part of the puzzle. The VA also claims its 2022 rule change improperly leveraged federal power against the judiciary.

In 2022, the VA freely admitted it expanded abortion coverage to meet “an anticipated rise in demand as a result of the [Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe v. Wade].

This line of reasoning betrays the VA’s intention to circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision reestablishing state control over abortion policy. In doing so, the VA writes:

The last administration created a purported Federal entitlement to abortion for veterans where none had existed before and without regard to state law.

The public comment period for the VA’s proposed revisions closed on September 3. If approved, the VA would return to its previous medical coverage guidelines.

“Treatment for ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages were covered under the VA’s medical benefits package prior to the 2022 [expansion],” the VA emphasizes.

“No State law prohibits treatment of ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages to save the life of a mother.”

The Daily Citizen applauds the VA for complying with federal law and addressing misuse of government power. Taxpayers should never be forced to fund elective abortions.

Additional Articles and Resources

Pentagon Ends Paid Travel Expenses and Time Off for Abortion

Trump Signs Executive Order Limiting Taxpayer Funds for Abortion

U.S. Military to Receive Time Off and Travel Expenses to Obtain Abortions

BREAKING: Trump Administration Moves to Freeze, Cut Funding to Planned Parenthood

My Choice Network

Counseling Consultation Request Form

Considering Abortion?

Focus on the Family Pro-Life

Pro-Abortion States Beef Up Protections for Abortion Pill Prescribers

Pro-abortion states are passing laws stripping prescriber names off chemical abortion pill labels.

The laws further insulate doctors who prescribe chemical abortion pills to people in pro-life states from investigation and prosecution.

Prescription Label Laws

New York, Maine, Vermont, Washington and Colorado have passed laws allowing prescribers to remove their names from prescriptions for mifepristone and misoprostol, the drugs used in a chemical abortion.

The laws make it nearly impossible for pro-life states to identify out-of-state, online abortionists—let alone investigate or sue them.

It’s unclear whether this kind of legislation is even legal; federal law requires prescriber names appear on all drug labels. But, so far, the laws remain unchallenged — and deeply problematic for pro-life states.

Importantly, prescription label laws making abortionists anonymous cover both local doctors prescribing abortions and doctors from other states that fill orders through local pharmacies. That means a mail-order abortionist in California could strip his name from a chemical abortion prescription if he filled the script at a pharmacy in New York.

California hopes to capitalize on this loophole by passing AB 260 — a bill that would remove both prescriber and patient names from chemical abortion pill labels. Most pharmacies that dispense mifepristone are in California, according to the left-leaning news outlet 19th Street

AB 260 is awaiting committee action in the California Senate. It passed the Assembly in May.

Shield Laws

Prescription label laws anonymizing abortionists beef up pro-abortion “shield laws” against pro-life judicial challenges.

States with abortion “shield laws” promise not to investigate out-of-state abortion providers or cooperate with investigations and prosecutions from pro-life states.

Eight states — California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — have shield laws explicitly protecting doctors who prescribe chemical abortions to patients in other states.

Fifteen others offer at least some protection from pro-life states’ investigations.

Of the 95,710 abortions prescribed or performed nationwide in December, an estimated one-in-seven were prescribed to women in pro-life states by abortionists in shield law states, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of data collected by the Society of Family Planning.

Pro-Life Challenges to Shield Laws

Pro-life states are workshopping ways to circumvent shield laws in court.

Louisiana and Texas pursued state judgements against Maggie Carpenter, a New York mail order abortionist, earlier this year— but they proved impossible to enforce without New York’s cooperation.

Now, pro-life states are empowering individual citizens to sue out-of-state abortionists for wrongdoing.

In July, Texas father Jerry Rodriguez sued California abortionist Remy Coeytaux in federal court for the wrongful death of Rodriguez’ pre-born children. A federal judgement in favor of Rodriguez would effectively strip Coetytaux of California’s shield law protections.

A Louisiana law allowing citizens to sue out-of-state abortionists, and extending the statute of limitations on abortion lawsuits to five years, took effect earlier this month.

Prescription laws anonymizing abortionists make it harder to file lawsuits like these by hiding the offenders’ identity.

Why It Matters

Chemical abortions are extremely dangerous. Nearly 11% of the more than 865,000 women who filed insurance claims for chemical abortions between 2017 and 2023 experienced severe adverse medical events within 45 days of taking mifepristone, according to data analysis by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, including:

  • Sepsis
  • Infection
  • Blood loss requiring a transfusion
  • Hemorrhage
  • Related hospitalization
  • Related ER visit
  • Related life-threatening cardiac, pulmonary and allergic reactions
  • Repeated surgical abortion
  • Other severe or life-threatening abortion-specific complications

Out-of-state, online abortion providers compound these dangers by prescribing abortion pills to:

  • Women more than 10-weeks pregnant, which is the FDA’s gestational limit for chemical abortions.
  • Teenage girls, often without parents’ consent, and even though mifepristone has never undergone pediatric testing.
  • Women who have not had an ultrasound, which doctors use to detect dangerous ectopic pregnancies mifepristone can disguise.
  • Women who will take the pills without a doctors’ supervision, which greatly increases the rate of complications.
  • People on behalf of women, which can indicate a woman is being coerced or tricked into getting an abortion.

Pro-abortion states should not be allowed to absolve abortionists of responsibility for the harms their actions cause vulnerable women.

To speak with a family help specialist or request resources, please call us at 1-800-A-FAMILY (232-6459).

If you are experiencing an unexpected pregnancy and want to learn more about your options, visit My Choice Network.

Some women, after taking the first abortion pill (mifepristone) come to regret their decision. Thankfully, there is a way to reverse the pill’s effects if prompt action is taken. To learn more about the abortion pill reversal protocol, visit abortionpillreversal.com or call 1-877-558-0333 to be connected with a medical professional who can guide callers through the process of reversing the pill’s effects.

To learn more about pro-life legislation in your state, contact your state Family Policy Council.

To learn more about the consequences of a chemical abortion, visit the links below.

Additional Articles and Resources

Texas Father Sues Out-of-State Abortionist for Killing His Preborn Children

Shield Laws Enable Chemical Abortion in Pro-Life States

Shield Law Abortion Providers Advertised Alongside Black Market Abortion Pills

Texas Sues New York Doctor for Prescribing Abortion Meds

New Abortion Pill Study Confirms Danger to Mothers

Woman Nearly Dies from Abortion Pill, Story Reflects Disturbing EPPC Data

Focus on the Family Broadcast: Abortion Pill Reversal

#AbortionChangesYou: A Case Study to Understand the Communicative Tensions in Women’s Medication Abortion Narratives (Health Communication)

The Abortion Pill Harms Women: Insurance Data Reveals One in Ten Patients Experiences a Serious Adverse Event (Ethics and Public Policy Center)

Texas Father Sues Out-of-State Abortionist for Killing His Preborn Children

A Texas father is suing an out-of-state abortionist for contributing to the death of his preborn children.

The federal class action suit, filed on behalf of “all current and future fathers of unborn children in the United States,” could stop abortionists from mailing mifepristone, the chemical abortion drug, into pro-life states.

The Case

Jerry Rodriguez alleges Remy Coeytaux, a California abortionist, illegally shipped chemical abortion pills into Texas, which caused the death of his two children.

Coeytaux represents a network of medical providers that prescribe and facilitate the shipment of chemical abortion pills into pro-life states. His sister, long-time abortion activist Francine Coeytaux, co-founded Plan C Pills — a website that connects women with online abortion providers.

Read the Daily Citizen’s story on black market abortion pills.

Rodriguez filed the suit on July 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Galveston Division. He’s represented by former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell, who helped write some of the nation’s most stringent pro-life laws.

Shield Laws

Abortionists are circumventing pro-life laws by prescribing chemical abortion kits online and sending them through the mail.

Several operate out of pro-abortion states with shield laws — laws promising not to investigate mail-order abortionists or cooperate with investigations from pro-life states.

Eight states — California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — have passed laws explicitly protecting abortionists who prescribe chemical abortions to out-of-state patients.

Fifteen others offer at least some protection against out-of-state investigations and lawsuits.

Shield laws make it nearly impossible for states to prosecute out-of-state abortionists that break pro-life laws. State-level judgements can’t be enforced without the resident state’s cooperation.

That’s a major problem, because more people are requesting mail-order abortion pills than ever. Of the 95,710 abortions prescribed or performed in December nationwide, an estimated one-in-seven were prescribed to women in pro-life states by abortionists in shield law states, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of data collected by the Society of Family Planning.

DID YOU KNOW?
The chemical abortion pill is exceptionally dangerous. One in ten women experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging or another “serious adverse event” after taking mifepristone, according to insurance data analyzed by the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Kendal’s second chemical abortion was even riskier because her baby was three months old. The FDA only approves chemical abortions through ten weeks of pregnancy.
The Allegations

In his case, Rodriguez claims his girlfriend, Kendal Garza, underwent two chemical abortions via pills prescribed by Coeytaux.

The first abortion allegedly occurred late last year. Shortly after Kendal and Rodriguez announced their pregnancy, Kendal’s estranged husband, Adam Garza, purchased a chemical abortion cocktail from Coeytaux through an online telemedicine appointment.

Garza and Kendal’s mother reportedly pressured Kendal into taking the illicit pills.

The second abortion occurred in 2025. Kendal carried her and Rodriguez’ baby boy for three months before she, again, allegedly consumed chemical abortion pills prescribed by Coeytaux and purchased her estranged husband.

Requested Judgement

Rodriguez requests the court hold Coeytaux legally liable for the wrongful death of his preborn children. He asks the judge to award him monetary damages and permanently bar Coeytaux from sending chemical abortion pills across state lines.

Texas law defines “wrongful death” as death caused by another person’s “wrongful act, neglect, carelessness, unskillfulness or default.” State law also classifies a preborn baby as a person.

The filing argues Coeytaux committed “wrongful acts” by defying state and federal laws regulating abortions.

Texas requires chemical abortions be:

  • Prescribed to a woman less than six weeks pregnant.
  • Prescribed by a licensed Texas physician.
  • Performed in a licensed abortion facility.
  • Performed after a mandatory ultrasound (a safety precaution to identify ectopic pregnancies, which can be fatal if left untreated.)

According to the suit, Coeytaux’s failure to meet these requirements make him guilty of felony murder — intentionally and knowingly causing a person’s death — and aiding an illegal, self-managed abortion.  

The filings reads:

Assisting a self-managed abortion in Texas is an act of murder. Although Kendal Garza cannot be charged with murder for her role in killing her unborn child, her immunity does not shield Coeytaux from liability for aiding or abetting or directly participating in the murder.
The Comstock Act

Rodriguez’ suit also alleges Coeytaux’s conduct violates the Comstock Act, a federal law prohibiting the physical or digital transportation of “abortion-related items or information” across state lines.

The act, which became law in 1873, regulates the interstate trade of “obscene literature and articles of immoral use,” including materials aiding and abetting abortion. It was last amended in 1996.

Rodriguez made his case a federal one by tying Coeytaux’s wrongdoing to Comstock. Though modern courts rarely enforce it, it is still a federal law.

Why It Matters

Rodriguez’ case is the first to challenge abortion shield laws in federal court. This is vital, because state-level shield laws cannot protect abortionists from an interstate judgement.

A favorable ruling in Rodriguez would establish a new precedent for enforcing Comstock against mail-order abortionists. That precedent, in turn, would allow states to obtain enforceable federal injunctions against out-of-state abortion providers.

Rodriguez’ story also offers an important counterpoint to the narrative that mail-order abortions protect women’s freedom. The alleged relationship between Kendal, her mother and her estranged husband demonstrate the ways third parties can — and do — use unregulated abortion pills to coerce or manipulate women into chemical abortions.

The Daily Citizen will continue covering Rodriguez v. Coeytaux.

To speak with a family help specialist or request resources, please call Focus on the Family at 1-800-A-FAMILY (232-6459).

If you are experiencing an unexpected pregnancy and want to learn more about your options, visit My Choice Network.

Some women, after taking the first abortion pill (mifepristone), come to regret their decision. Thankfully, there is a way to reverse the pill’s effects if prompt action is taken. To learn more about the abortion pill reversal protocol, visit abortionpillreversal.com or call 1-877-558-0333 to be connected with a medical professional who can guide callers through the process of reversing the pill’s effects.

To learn more about pro-life legislation in your state, contact your state Family Policy Council.

To learn more about the consequences of a chemical abortion, visit the links below.

Additional Articles and Resources

Shield Laws Enable Chemical Abortion in Pro-Life States

Shield Law Abortion Providers Advertised Alongside Black Market Abortion Pills

Texas Sues New York Doctor for Prescribing Abortion Meds

New Abortion Pill Study Confirms Danger to Mothers

Woman Nearly Dies from Abortion Pill, Story Reflects Disturbing EPPC Data

Focus on the Family Broadcast: Abortion Pill Reversal

#AbortionChangesYou: A Case Study to Understand the Communicative Tensions in Women’s Medication Abortion Narratives (Health Communication)

The Abortion Pill Harms Women: Insurance Data Reveals One in Ten Patients Experiences a Serious Adverse Event (Ethics and Public Policy Center)