A New York judge’s ruling reaffirms the strength of state shield laws and draws a clear line against Texas’ attempt to export its abortion ban beyond its borders.
The battle over abortion rights crossed state lines last week when a Hudson Valley judge refused to enforce a Texas abortion ban in New York state.
On Friday, Oct. 31, the judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against a New York clerk who refused to accept papers to enforce a Texas judgment against Dr. Margaret Carpenter, a New York doctor who provided telehealth abortion services to a Texas woman.
Advocates called the ruling both unsurprising and a clear affirmation of legal limits. “The New York judge’s dismissal of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s frivolous lawsuit is welcomed but expected,” said the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine (ACT).
New York’s shield law was built precisely for this clash. In June 2023, New York enacted a shield law authorizing healthcare providers in the state to provide telehealth abortion services to patients outside of New York without risk of criminal and investigation or civil action in states where abortion services are outlawed or restricted. By barring New York officials from enforcing out-of-state subpoenas, judgments, arrests or extraditions in cases targeting providers, the statute cleared the way for New York doctors to treat patients in Texas, where abortion is banned.
That protection made the next step plain, as Texas tried to carry its judgment across state lines into New York.
Shield laws are constitutional, and—as the judge’s dismissal underscores—they’re working.
Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine
In December 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Dr. Carpenter of New York for allegedly prescribing abortion pills to a patient in Texas. After Carpenter declined to respond to the case, a Texas judge in February 2025 entered a default judgment in favor of Paxton, ordering her to pay a $113,000 fine.
To enforce the judgment, Paxton sought to collect the fine in Ulster County, N.Y., but the County Clerk Taylor Bruck rejected Paxton’s attempt to file the papers. Bruck pointed to New York’s shield law, a statute that bars courts and officials from using its state resources to enforce out-of-state punishments against protected healthcare providers.
The clash moved from paperwork to litigation as the challenge went constitutional. In July, Paxton sued Bruck, claiming the shield law violates the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause. Shortly after, on Sept. 8, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a motion to intervene, defending the constitutionality of the state’s shield law.
At the time, AG James framed the fight this way: “I am stepping in to defend the integrity of our laws and our courts against this blatant overreach. Texas has no authority in New York, and no power to impose its cruel abortion ban here. Our shield law exists to protect New Yorkers from out-of-state extremists, and New York will always stand strong as a safe haven for healthcare and freedom of choice. I will fight every last attempt to roll back our rights and turn back the clock on reproductive freedom.”
When the case reached the merits, the court sided with New York law. On Oct. 31, Ulster County Supreme Court Judge David Gandin dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the medical services provided by Carpenter are legal in New York and fall “squarely within the definition of ‘legally protected health activity’” under New York’s shield law. He added that New York’s shield law was crafted specifically to safeguard the type of conduct challenged in this case. Judge Gandin declined to weigh in on the constitutionality of New York’s shield law, noting that Paxton did not explicitly ask for a declaration on the constitutionality of the shield law.
Our shield law exists to protect New Yorkers from out-of-state extremists, and New York will always stand strong as a safe haven for healthcare and freedom of choice.
ACT linked the decision to the shield law’s core purpose: “This overreach is the exact scenario New York’s telehealth shield law is intended to address. Shield laws are constitutional, and—as the judge’s dismissal underscores—they’re working.”
ACT added that the state’s commitment to protecting its doctors remains firm. “New York has consistently demonstrated its dedication to defending telemedicine abortion care, and we’re glad to see the courts judiciously apply state law protecting New Yorkers from antiabortion extremist overreach,” said ACT.
Julie F. Kay, founder and CEO of Reproductive Futures and a key architect of New York’s telehealth shield law, explained that this victory is part of a larger fight for access and autonomy, “I’m pleased to see that yet again New York’s shield law has stood strong to protect the provision of safe, legal abortion care. These shield laws are effective in addressing the public health and human rights needs in a post-Dobbs era.”
Reproductive Futures advocates for telehealth abortion shield laws and supports clinicians operating under these laws, said Kay. “Reproductive Futures will continue to pass, expand and implement these vital laws to make sure essential healthcare is available for all who need it.”
Great Job Carrie N. Baker & the Team @ Ms. Magazine Source link for sharing this story.
