Image: Shutterstock
A Texas woman is suing pro-life organisation Students for Life of America for nearly $460,000, claiming the state’s abortion restrictions forced her to continue two unplanned pregnancies. However, the lawsuit centres on the organisation’s alleged ordering of abortion-inducing drugs as part of an undercover investigation, raising questions about the scope of the law being used to bring the case.
Maria Puerto, a pseudonym used by the 26-year-old mother of two, filed the lawsuit in a Harris County Court against Students for Life president Kristan Hawkins and three other members of the organisation. The action seeks $459,782, which the lawsuit describes as the average cost of raising two children from birth to the age of 18 in Texas.
Puerto alleges that the organisation’s actions violated House Bill 7, known as the Woman and Child Protection Act, which came into force in December 2025. The legislation restricts the manufacture, distribution, mailing, transport, and provision of abortion-inducing drugs in Texas, while allowing private individuals to bring civil actions against alleged violators.
According to the lawsuit, Students for Life members ordered abortion drugs online in March 2026 while documenting how easily the medication could be obtained. The organisation has argued that the orders formed part of a publicity exercise, rather than an attempt to procure drugs for an abortion.
Hawkins has described the lawsuit as frivolous and a publicity stunt. The case has yet to establish that the defendants breached the law, and its outcome remains uncertain.
Puerto’s claim also centres on the personal and financial difficulties she says followed her pregnancies. According to court documents, she became pregnant in 2022 despite taking contraception, and subsequently lost her college scholarship after missing classes because of morning sickness. She also alleges that she lost her job, leaving her unable to complete her education or afford childcare.
When she became pregnant again in 2024, Puerto says her financial circumstances left her feeling she had no choice but to continue the pregnancy. She argues that Texas’s abortion restrictions denied her the freedom to determine the course of her own life.
The case has attracted further attention because of how any potential compensation would be distributed. According to reporting by The Texas Tribune, Puerto would receive $10,000 if successful, with the remainder intended for Jane’s Due Process, a non-profit organisation that helps young people in Texas access abortion and birth control.
The lawsuit therefore raises questions not only about the interpretation of Texas’s abortion-drug legislation, but also about the use of litigation to challenge pro-life advocacy.
For pro-life campaigners, the case highlights the increasingly contentious legal battles surrounding efforts to protect unborn children. It also brings into focus the distinction between preventing the deliberate ending of unborn life and addressing the very real difficulties faced by women experiencing unexpected pregnancies.
Puerto’s account describes serious financial hardship, but whether Students for Life can legally be held liable under a law designed to restrict the provision of abortion-inducing drugs is one that the courts will have to resolve.
Peter Kearney, SPUC’s Communications Manager, said: “While the financial pressures faced by women in difficult circumstances must be taken seriously, they should not be used to obscure the fundamental question of protecting unborn children.
“Women facing unexpected pregnancies deserve practical support, not a society that presents abortion as the only answer to hardship. The priority must be to ensure that both mothers and their children are supported.”
