Father Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit Over Abortion Pills

A depiction of the ongoing legal battles surrounding abortion rights in the United States.

News Summary

A Texas father, Jerry Rodriguez, has filed a landmark wrongful death lawsuit against a California doctor over the alleged illegal mailing of abortion pills to his girlfriend, Kendal Garza. The lawsuit, which includes multiple parties, questions the legality of abortion practices amidst varying state laws. Rodriguez claims the doctor violated the Comstock Act by mailing pills intended for abortions and is seeking damages and legal standing for fathers in similar cases. This case raises critical issues around interstate abortion access and the responsibilities of abortion providers.

Galveston, Texas — A landmark wrongful death lawsuit has been filed by Jerry Rodriguez, a Texas father, against California doctor Remy Coeytaux over the alleged illegal mailing of abortion pills used by his girlfriend, Kendal Garza, to terminate two pregnancies. The lawsuit, which was filed on July 20, 2025, in the federal court of the Southern District of Texas, also includes Garza’s estranged husband, Adam Garza, and her mother as defendants for their involvement in procuring the abortion pills.

This case represents a significant legal test regarding the boundaries of abortion shield laws in blue states, which protect abortion providers from legal consequences when serving patients from pro-life states like Texas. Under Texas law, abortions are generally banned except in instances of medical emergencies, and women who undergo the procedure are not subject to prosecution. However, individuals who provide abortion services or assist women in obtaining abortions may be held liable.

Rodriguez asserts that Coeytaux illegally mailed the abortion pills to Garza in September 2024 and January 2025, violating the Comstock Act—a law established in the 19th century that bars the mailing of items used for abortion. The lawsuit claims that Coeytaux was aware that the medications were intended for inducing abortions and violated Texas Health and Safety regulations concerning abortion drug distribution.

Rodriguez is represented by pro-life attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who has been influential in shaping Texas’s abortion legislation, notably through the implementation of the Heartbeat Bill (SB 8). The complaint seeks at least $75,000 in damages along with an injunction to prohibit Coeytaux from distributing abortion-inducing drugs in the future. Moreover, the lawsuit aims to establish legal standing for fathers of unborn children to initiate lawsuits in abortion-related matters.

The timeline of events leading to the lawsuit began when Rodriguez started dating Garza in June 2024. Shortly thereafter, she discovered she was pregnant and initially expressed a desire to keep the child. However, pressure from her estranged husband, Adam Garza, led her to ultimately seek the abortion. The financial transactions for the abortion pills, reportedly totaling $150, were communicated through Venmo, linking them to Coeytaux.

It is alleged that Kendal Garza took the abortion pills at two separate residences: her mother’s house and Adam’s home in Galveston County. After taking the pills, Kendal texted Rodriguez about the tragic act of needing to cut the baby’s umbilical cord and bury it but did not specify where this took place. Following the first two abortions, Kendal became pregnant again in May 2025, leading Rodriguez to express concerns about potential pressure for another abortion.

The lawsuit alleges felony murder against Coeytaux, claiming he knowingly caused the death of two unborn children. This case not only highlights the complexities surrounding post-Dobbs abortion litigation but also underscores a growing concern regarding interstate access to abortion services following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions that impact reproductive rights.

Legal experts regard this case as a potential template for future pro-life litigation aimed at targeting abortion providers in laws and situations involving more restrictive regulations. The outcome may have lasting implications on how abortion access is managed across state lines and the legal responsibilities of both providers and participants in the process.