A groundbreaking lawsuit filed in Texas federal court could open a new front in the post-Roe legal war over abortion pills and unborn victims’ rights. Jerry Rodriguez, a Texas man, is accusing a California doctor of “murdering” his two unborn children by mailing abortion drugs across state lines—marking the first time this legal tactic has been used.

Rodriguez filed the wrongful death suit against Dr. Remy Coeytaux, who allegedly supplied abortion pills in 2024 to Rodriguez’s then-girlfriend, via a $150 Venmo payment. The pills, mailed to Galveston County, Texas, were allegedly used to terminate two pregnancies—one in September 2024 and another in January 2025. Rodriguez is seeking over $75,000 in damages and a permanent injunction to block Coeytaux from mailing abortion pills into Texas again.

The lawsuit relies heavily on the Comstock Act—an 1873 federal anti-obscenity law that bans the mailing of abortion materials. Though rarely invoked in modern times, the law remains on the books and is now being revived by pro-life legal strategists like attorney Jonathan Mitchell, the architect of Texas’s heartbeat law. Mitchell is representing Rodriguez and argues that Coeytaux’s use of the mail to send abortion-inducing drugs violated both federal and Texas law.

Rodriguez claims he fathered the two pregnancies but that his girlfriend’s estranged husband pressured her into taking the pills after purchasing them through Coeytaux’s Aid Access network. An ultrasound image from January, filed as Exhibit 2, purportedly shows the second unborn child, who Rodriguez says was a boy.

The case challenges California’s abortion shield laws—which were designed to protect in-state providers from out-of-state legal attacks. However, by filing in federal court and using wrongful death and felony murder statutes from Texas, Rodriguez’s legal team has avoided those traditional roadblocks.

According to the complaint, Coeytaux violated multiple Texas abortion regulations, including rules requiring informed consent, an ultrasound, and a licensed in-state provider. Since Coeytaux is not licensed in Texas and allegedly ignored these laws, Rodriguez’s lawyers argue the acts were illegal and therefore constitute wrongful death.

The implications are massive. If this case proceeds, it could establish a legal blueprint for other pro-life plaintiffs to target out-of-state abortion providers using century-old federal laws and aggressive interpretations of state homicide statutes. That could effectively nationalize the abortion debate again—just three years after the Supreme Court returned the issue to the states in the landmark Dobbs decision.

As of now, Coeytaux has not responded to the lawsuit and has made no public comments. Pro-abortion groups are expected to fiercely contest the case, questioning Rodriguez’s legal standing and challenging the relevance of the Comstock Act.

But if Rodriguez clears the initial legal hurdles, this case could redefine the reach of abortion law and the rights of fathers in the modern reproductive legal battle.