New York Judge Blocks Texas Effort to Enforce Abortion Penalty Against Manhattan Doctor

A New York judge has dismissed a lawsuit from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton seeking to enforce the Lone Star state’s abortion penalty in the Empire State.

Justice David Gandin of the Ulster County Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of County Clerk Taylor Bruck, who had refused to file a $113,000 Texas judgment against a Manhattan-based doctor.

The ruling upholds New York’s so-called abortion “shield law,” which bars officials from cooperating with out-of-state law enforcement actions targeting abortion services that are legal in New York.

Paxton sued Dr. Margaret Carpenter in December 2024 under Texas’s near-total abortion ban, accusing her of illegally prescribing and mailing abortion pills to a 20-year-old Texas woman, an act he said “resulted in the killing of an unborn child and serious medical complications for the mother.”

Texas law prohibits physicians from providing abortion-inducing drugs through the mail or by delivery service. It also bans telehealth consultations unless the provider holds a valid Texas medical license.

After Carpenter and her attorney failed to appear in court, a Texas judge issued a default judgment ordering her to pay $113,000 in penalties.

In March, Paxton’s office asked Bruck to register the Texas judgment and authorized the collection of those penalties. Bruck refused to do either, citing the state’s shield law. When Paxton’s office renewed its demand in July, Bruck again declined.

“While I’m not entirely sure how things work in Texas, here in New York, a rejection means the matter is closed,” Bruck said.

That prompted Paxton to file a petition asking the Ulster County Supreme Court to compel Bruck to accept the Texas filing.

“No matter where they reside, pro-abortion extremists who send drugs designed to kill the unborn into Texas will face the full force of our state’s pro-life laws,” Paxton said in a statement at that time.

In Friday’s ruling, Gandin sided with Bruck, concluding that Carpenter’s actions were legal in New York and explicitly protected by the state’s shield law.

“Dr. Carpenter’s conduct falls squarely within the definition of ‘legally protected health activity’ under [the shield law],” Gandin wrote.

“In fact, her activities were the precise type of conduct [the shield law] was designed to protect.”

The case had drawn national attention as a potential constitutional duel between state-level abortion bans and shield laws.

New York is one of the states with an abortion shield law that protects its physicians who provide abortion services to women in states with more restrictions. Meanwhile, states like Texas argue that, if the patient is located within their borders, the abortion occurs there and is therefore subject to their laws.

In Paxton’s filing, the Republican had argued that New York’s refusal to enforce the Texas judgment violated the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires each state to respect the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

Gandin, however, did not address the constitutional issue. Instead, he ruled on procedural grounds, finding that Paxton failed to make the case that Bruck has a legal obligation to accept the Texas judgment.

Since his ruling did not touch the constitutional question, the judge rejected a motion to intervene by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who had offered to join the case to defend the shield law’s constitutionality.

“I’m glad the court properly interpreted New York’s shield law to prevent Texas from trying to enforce its abortion laws against New Yorkers,” James said on X following the ruling.

“New York will stand strong as a safe haven for health care and freedom of choice.”

Paxton’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Texas officials have 30 days to appeal the ruling to a higher court.

Carpenter was indicted in January by a Louisiana grand jury for allegedly prescribing abortion medication to a woman there. It was the first known criminal prosecution of its kind.

-The Epoch Times