Contact governor newsom to sign ab260 to protect women’s reproductive rights!
To Thwart The Threat Of A National Abortion Ban Enacted By Texas, California Answers With AB260, Removing ‘Gender Affirming Care’ To Focus Solely On Women’s Reproductive Rights.
Summary: Texas’s HB7 shifts the abortion fight from state policy into a national litigation campaign by enabling private civil “bounty” lawsuits against medication-abortion providers. California - the nation’s largest Mifepristone supplier and a telehealth distribution hub - is uniquely vulnerable. AB 260, now on Governor Newsom’s desk, gives California the tools to shield providers, protect patients, and blunt this cross-border litigation strategy. The Governor must sign it.
A New Legal Strategy: Drive Abortion Medication Providers In Blue States Into Bankruptcy to Enact a Nationwide Abortion Ban
HB7 in Texas empowers private parties to sue providers, manufacturers, distributors, or others connected to medication abortion for large statutory awards. The law’s structure creates a financial incentive for repeated suits and even opens the door to organized “sting” litigation that can be repeated over time. The bill is a potential model for forcing providers out of business through litigation rather than through the ballot box or direct criminal enforcement. Source
Why is that dangerous? The private-enforcement model can reach across state lines. If manufacturers, pharmacies, or telehealth providers face the prospect of being hit with suits in Texas courts for shipping pills to a Texas address, many will decide the risk is too great and stop shipping medication, or decline to serve patients in states where “bounty” litigation is possible - dramatically shrinking access across the country. Source
An avalanche of litigation launched against blue-state providers by red-state bounty hunters could put pharmacies and manufacturers out of business, accomplishing a de-facto national ban on abortion.
Why California Is Ground Zero
California supplies a disproportionate share of medication abortion via clinics, telehealth providers, and pharmacies. It is also home to major distributors and a robust telemedicine ecosystem - so any legal strategy that targets mail distribution or out-of-state prescribers will have a significant impact in California. Public-health organizations, legal trackers, and news outlets have repeatedly warned that litigation aimed at Mifepristone can quickly chill access even in states where abortion remains legal, because the supply chains and providers are national or regional in scope. Source
In short: an attack on medication-abortion supply chains in Texas becomes an attack on Californians’ access, too.
The Legal Backdrop: Mifepristone, the FDA, and Shield Laws
Medication abortion’s legal vulnerability has been exposed through several high-profile cases. In Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, plaintiffs sought to upend the FDA’s approval of Mifepristone. While courts have repeatedly upheld FDA authority, the litigation landscape shows how procedural decisions and jurisdictional splits create real risk for providers and patients. The Supreme Court’s involvement in 2024-2025 litigation underscores the instability in the legal environment and why states must be proactive in protecting access. Source
Against that uncertain national backdrop, shield laws and statutory protections at the state level become essential tools. Shield laws typically limit cooperation with out-of-state enforcement actions, restrict disclosure of patient or prescriber information, or prohibit professional discipline based on services lawful in the state. A focused shield can blunt the reach of HB7-style tactics by removing procedural levers that out-of-state litigants rely on. Source
What AB 260 Does - A Focused and Practical Defense
AB 260 aims to provide concrete protection for medication-abortion providers and patients in California. Among its provisions are measures that:
Prohibit certain disclosures of patient and prescriber identity on medication labeling or in easily accessible records, making it harder for out-of-state litigants to build claims based on shipment or delivery data. Source
Protect health-care providers and pharmacists from state administrative or licensing penalties arising from providing medication abortion consistent with California law. Source
Repeal outdated restrictions that prevented incarcerated women from accessing abortion care—expanding access for a vulnerable population. Source
AB260 was narrowed to correctly focus on Reproductive Rights
As the threat of HB7 loomed large, California legislators departed from the strategy of forced-teaming gender affirming care with women’s reproductive rights, striking gender language from the bill:
(e) It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to ensure that patients can continue to access care, including abortion, gender-affirming care, and other sexual and reproductive health care in California, and to allow patients to access care through asynchronous modes. ensure continued access to medication abortion that has been proven safe and effective for two decades in California for individuals seeking abortion care.
This is a critical shift in strategy. Throughout this year, state legislatures attempted to force-team women’s reproductive rights and gender-affirming care (clever rebranding for genital mutilation and hormones) to ensure passage. Women’s Liberation Front vigorously opposed these attempts. We stand for women’s reproductive self-sovereignty AND oppose gender ideology, the only truly non-partisan stance that centers the rights of women and girls.
Under the looming threat of Texas’ HB7, California legislators shifted and narrowed their focus solely to women’s reproductive rights. This is the first time we’ve seen California or any state prioritize reproductive rights OVER gender ideology.
We applaud this move.
AB260 also repealed a law banning abortions in women’s prisons in California. As the state allows men identifying as women into women’s prisons, and hasn’t stopped the problem of rapes by staff, at least it won’t be further punishing women in its custody with pregnancies forced on them by utterly barbaric laws and practices.
Why AB 260 Matters Practically (Not Just Symbolically)
AB 260 changes the litigation calculus for any party considering targeting California providers:
It reduces the practical value of litigation by restricting the administrative and record-based avenues plaintiffs use to locate and prove shipments. When win rates drop and enforcement cooperation evaporates, opportunistic “bounty” litigation loses appeal. Source
It strengthens the legal defenses available to providers and pharmacies by codifying protections against state discipline or compulsory disclosure. Source
It protects vulnerable populations by restoring access inside prisons and by reducing the risk that telehealth and mail-order providers will stop shipping. Source
Simply put, AB 260 makes it harder and less profitable for out-of-state actors to conduct the litigation strategy HB7 incentives.
Anticipated Counterarguments and Why They Fall Short
Opponents will claim AB 260 overreaches or shields illegal conduct, but the bill is narrowly tailored to protect lawful California medical practices, dispensing of FDA approved medications, and patient privacy. It preserves the state's authority to regulate medicine and protects providers from extraterritorial civil enforcement that aims to circumvent state laws. Given the national implications of HB7’s private enforcement model, targeted defenses are a rational and legally appropriate response. Source
Furthermore, the idea that civil enforcement should be exported by private actors as a matter of public policy ignores the core federalist principle that states should not effectively legislate in other states through private lawsuits. Courts will have to decide the constitutional reach of such laws, but legislators can and should take reasonable steps to protect their citizens’ access to care. Source
We appreciate California taking this step, and support this legislation.
TAKE ACTION!
AB 260 is on Governor Newsom’s desk, and he can sign it into law or veto it any time before October 12, 2025.
Call Governor Newsom’s office: (916) 445-2841. Be concise and polite: ask him to sign AB 260 to protect Californians’ access to medication abortion and to shield providers from out-of-state litigation. Source
Use the online contact form: Select “Active Bill” as the topic and paste/adapt the sample message below. (A sample script is in the box that follows.) Source
Share this article and the cited sources with friends, family, and on social media - especially Californians who can call or email directly.
Support WoLF! We can only do this work with your support. Please donate today! Every contribution matters.
Sample call/email script (adapt as you wish):
Dear Governor Newsom,
I urge you to sign AB 260. Texas’ HB7 enables private suits - potentially for up to $100,000 per claim - that can bankrupt providers in California, destroying access to medication abortion for Californians and others who rely on California providers. AB 260 is a narrowly tailored, critical protection that will safeguard patients, providers, and the continuity of care. Please sign it now.
Thank you for standing for women’s reproductive rights.
Sources & further reading
AP News - Texas lawmakers approve letting private citizens sue abortion pill providers. Source
Texas Tribune - “Texas bill to restrict abortion pills beefs up an existing legal tool for a new fight.” Source
Legiscan - Bill Text: CA AB260. Source
California Legislative Information - AB 260 bill page & analysis. Source
Abortion, Every Day - “Texas Republicans’ New Cash-Grab Abortion Ban.” Source
Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA - case background and tracking. Source
KFF / Johns Hopkins Public Health - analyses on medication abortion and legal context. Source
UCLA Law & other litigation trackers monitoring mifepristone cases. Source
