September 10, 2025
Students for Life of America (SFLA) and its sister organization, Students for Life Action (SFLAction), are demanding an end to so-called “Shield Laws” that protect the trafficking and traffickers of Chemical Abortion Pills into states that have already acted against them, setting up a Constitutional clash of epic proportions.
This renewed call for action comes especially after Texas woman Liana Davis claimed that her boyfriend obtained Chemical Abortion Pills illegally and slipped them into her hot chocolate– killing their baby. Davis accused her boyfriend at the time of dissolving at least 10 Chemical Abortion Pills in her drink. The woman’s case is moving forward in the Federal Southern District Court of Texas, Corpus Christi Division.
This case shines a spotlight on how “Shield Laws” do nothing for women but only exist to protect and enable abusive men. This boyfriend, Christopher Cooprider, repeatedly urged Ms. Davis get “rid of it”. He took this murderous act into his hands with no regard for her. These shield laws do not warrant “choice” as the abortion lobby claims they do they empower evil men.
According to the Center of Reproductive Rights, “Interstate shield laws have become critical tools used by abortion access states to protect out-of-state patients in accessing abortion… The laws protect abortion providers, helpers, and patient medical records from civil and criminal consequences stemming from abortion…provided to out-of-state residents.”
These shield laws are propping up an abusive culture that erodes consent, promotes misogyny, and lets men determine the conditions of motherhood. But bluer states seem sympathetic to the rights of abusers, to prop up Big Abortion which pads the pockets of their politicians.
Unfortunately, pro-abortion states like New York, are targeting states that defend Life—singling out the Lone Star state.
As reported by the Washington Post, New York Attorney General Letitia James is engaged in a high-profile legal fight with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over access to Chemical Abortion Pills. The dispute centers on New York’s “shield” law, which permits doctors to prescribe and mail Chemical Abortion pills to patients in states where Life is protected.
In December 2024, Paxton sued a New York abortionist for remotely prescribing abortion pills to a Texas patient, violating Texas law. A Texas judge subsequently ordered the doctor to stop treating Texas patients and imposed a $113,000 fine. However, a New York county clerk refused to enforce the Texas judgment, citing protections in the state’s shield law. New York, along with seven other Democrat-led states, has enacted such laws to safeguard abortion access beyond its own borders.
Here is an excerpt from the New York Times breakdown titled, “How States are Clashing on Abortion”:
Legal warfare. Some of the blue states from the above map passed laws saying they would not cooperate with these prosecutions. They won’t comply with out-of-state abortion investigations, won’t arrest doctors, won’t answer subpoenas. And New York, Washington, Colorado, Maine and Massachusetts recently enacted measures that let doctors mail abortion pills without putting their names on the packaging. California may go further, allowing the pills to be sent without the name of the patient, prescriber or pharmacist in the package. (A majority of medication abortion services across the country use California-based pharmacies.)
What next. At issue is the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which says that states should generally respect other states’ laws. For example: Kansas will extradite a woman accused of fraud in Nebraska. Montana will recognize a marriage license from Minnesota. But Texas says New York’s abortion shield law amounts to a “policy of hostility to the public acts/statutes of a sister state.” The states with shield laws say governments elsewhere can’t punish their citizens for following local laws. They point out that the Full Faith and Credit Clause makes an exception for this. Eventually, the Supreme Court will likely have to decide.
As this clash sets up the fate of the state of our Union, one thing is clear: we cannot, as a nation, actively attack other states without a Constitutional crisis. See you at the Supreme Court: this must be set straight.