The Senate Committee on State Affairs heard public testimony on Senate Bill 7, a measure aimed at restricting access to medication abortion and creating a private civil enforcement mechanism tied to distribution of abortion‑inducing drugs.

Why it matters: Proponents argue the bill protects unborn children and curbs shipments of medication abortion; opponents say it will punish Texans seeking reproductive care, create large private damages awards, chill medical provision and risk the safety of people in abusive situations.

What witnesses said: Planned Parenthood Texas Votes’ government‑relations coordinator Alexandra Evans testified in opposition, warning that SB 7’s private civil‑enforcement mechanism would “reward bad actors willing to profit off others’ deeply personal health care decisions.” She and other witnesses argued medication abortion is safe and that restrictions will force people to seek care out of state or via informal channels.

Several witnesses gave personal accounts. Destiny Beasley described family trauma and urged lawmakers not to further restrict access; Sarah Beck and other medical witnesses warned maternal and infant mortality rose after Texas’ 2021 abortion restrictions, saying the bill would worsen health outcomes. Opponents also noted the bill’s potential to harm domestic‑violence survivors who rely on medication abortion to escape dangerous relationships.

Supporters of the bill, including Ashley Leonards of the anti‑abortion group Protect His Right to Life, urged passage and cited research on pills shipped into Texas. Leonards called for tools to protect “preborn children” and referenced published estimates of mail‑order abortion pills.

Action taken: After the hearing the committee recorded a vote to report SB 7 favorably to the full Senate (committee roll recorded as 9 ayes, 0 nays). Testimony raised questions about whether the private‑enforcement design would chill medical advice and prompt costly civil suits.

Next steps: The bill will proceed to the full Senate. Legal experts and advocates told the committee the measure could prompt litigation over state authority and civil‑procedure design, and health‑care providers signaled they would challenge provisions that hinder patient‑provider confidentiality and care.