The Senate on the floor took up and passed third reading of House Bill 7, a measure that would allow private civil suits against people and companies that manufacture, ship or distribute abortion-inducing medications into Texas for the purpose of causing an abortion.

The bill’s author, Senator Hughes, told the chamber the measure is aimed at “little unborn babies” and at accountability for manufacturers and distributors he described as “Big Pharma” exploiting legal loopholes. Hughes said the legislation creates civil liability analogous to product-liability claims under state long-arm jurisdiction and that companies “will be held accountable.”

Supporters framed the measure as a consumer-safety and accountability statute. Hughes cited recent analyses he said show higher-than‑reported complication rates from medication abortions and argued Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safeguards that once required multiple in-person visits have been relaxed. He referred to a study of insurer claims he described as covering “865,727 prescribed mifepristone abortions from 2017 to 2023” and told colleagues that study found “10.93 percent of women experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or another serious adverse event within 45 days following a mifepristone abortion.”

Opponents and questioners on the floor raised constitutional and practical concerns: whether the statute’s civil enforcement mechanisms implicate interstate commerce, whether qui tam incentives and reward provisions might create perverse incentives, and how the law would treat pharmacies, insurers and manufacturers that sell or ship the drugs in other states. Senator Johnson asked whether the House bill differs from earlier Senate versions and about changes that removed provisions such as penalties on judges and venue rules; Hughes said some of those provisions were removed in the House version and that the bill before the Senate is narrower and focused on the medications.

The bill includes civil remedies, a qui tam structure that offers monetary awards to relators (with amounts discussed on the floor including a $100,000 figure for certain claimants), and exemptions for hospital care, medical emergencies and certain health-care providers. Questions from senators explored whether abusive actors could use the statute to bring claims, whether insurance companies or out-of-state prescribers and pharmacies could be sued, and how the statute would treat manufacturers that distribute the drugs for non‑abortion clinical uses. Hughes responded that the bill’s text narrowly targets distribution “for purposes other than those” permitted in the statute and that sanctions for frivolous suits are included.

On the procedural record, the Senate suspended its regular order of business to consider House Bill 7 and then voted to advance the measure on third reading. The roll calls and floor tallies recorded during the day showed the motions to suspend and the third reading roll with majorities recorded on the floor.

The floor debate left several open implementation questions that senators repeatedly raised, including how the law would be applied to insurance companies, pharmacies and manufacturers that operate across state lines, and whether the bill’s enforcement design might invite litigation testing federal constitutional limits. Senators also pressed on the bill’s protections for women; Hughes repeatedly stated the bill does not permit suits against the pregnant woman and described policy efforts to expand support programs for pregnant women as complementary.

The outcome recorded on the floor for the third reading was in favor of the bill. The Senate’s action advances House Bill 7 to subsequent legislative steps in the process; the text and several contested provisions were the subject of extensive floor questioning and remain likely points for legal challenge and post-enactment litigation.

Less critical details: senators referenced prior special-session bills and committee-level drafting history; multiple members noted that earlier iterations contained broader or different enforcement provisions that were removed in the House version or subsequent amendments.