According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HB 7 are currently indeterminate due to uncertainties surrounding how the proposed law would impact the state’s judicial system and civil litigation landscape. The bill establishes a unique enforcement structure based solely on private civil actions (qui tam), rather than state-led investigations or prosecutions. This creates uncertainty regarding the number of new civil cases that could be filed, the extent of judicial resources that might be consumed, and the potential burden on state courts.

According to the Office of Court Administration (OCA), there is no reliable method for projecting the volume or complexity of civil lawsuits that may arise under this new enforcement framework. Factors such as the number of potential plaintiffs, the scope of targeted defendants (including out-of-state actors), and anticipated legal challenges all make it difficult to estimate costs or workload changes for courts. Similarly, the potential financial impact on court administration, such as increased need for staff, docket management, or security, is speculative at this point.

From a state revenue perspective, the Comptroller of Public Accounts is unable to estimate whether the bill will produce any meaningful revenue gains or losses. While successful plaintiffs may be awarded statutory damages and attorney’s fees, those financial remedies flow to private parties, not the state treasury. Additionally, since the state plays no direct enforcement role, there is no expectation of enforcement-related expenditures or recovery of costs.

Local governments may also face financial uncertainty. County and district courts could see increased caseloads, particularly in regions where relators choose to file claims under the bill’s flexible venue provisions. However, without knowing how widely or aggressively the statute would be used, the LBB concluded that the fiscal impact on local governments cannot be determined at this time.

HB 7 represents a continuation and expansion of Texas's post-Dobbs legal framework for protecting unborn life through non-criminal, civil enforcement channels. The bill creates a new Chapter 171A in the Health and Safety Code that prohibits the manufacture, distribution, mailing, prescribing, or provision of abortion-inducing drugs into, out of, or within Texas, except in narrowly defined circumstances such as medical emergencies, treatment for ectopic pregnancies, or miscarriages. This framework reflects Texas’s commitment to prenatal life protection without increasing the footprint of state criminal law enforcement. Instead, it uses a privatized civil remedy model similar to that seen in S.B. 8 (2021).

The bill’s enforcement mechanism is limited to private civil actions filed under a qui tam model. Any private individual (except certain excluded parties, such as abusers or stalkers) may bring suit and seek injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and a minimum of $100,000 per violation. Government officials are barred from enforcing the law directly, which has the practical effect of insulating it from immediate constitutional challenges in federal court under traditional standing doctrines. This design reflects a strategic and tested legislative method to enforce state abortion restrictions while minimizing direct state exposure to litigation risk.

From a limited government standpoint, the bill avoids expanding prosecutorial or agency powers. It refrains from creating new regulatory burdens or agencies, does not introduce new criminal offenses, and uses the civil court system without mandating public expenditures. While some critics raise concerns about judicial burden due to potential increases in private litigation, the law does not obligate public prosecutors or courts to proactively monitor or enforce the statute. Moreover, it includes protections for neutral service providers (e.g., internet hosts, cloud platforms) to preserve private enterprise rights where there is no direct facilitation of abortion-related conduct.

The bill further advances individual responsibility and community engagement by empowering individuals, especially those with direct personal stakes, such as fathers or grandparents of the unborn child, to bring actions when they believe the law has been violated. This maintains the principle that individuals and communities have a role in upholding moral and legal standards without necessitating broader state intervention.

Concerns about due process, jurisdiction, and litigation abuse are not unwarranted, but HB 7 includes a number of structural limitations to address them. The law defines who may bring suit and who may not, restricts access to personal and medical data to prevent harassment, and provides defenses for actors who unintentionally violate the law despite taking reasonable precautions. It also shields from liability those who merely provide neutral access to content or infrastructure. These elements help narrow the scope of litigation to clearly intentional or complicit conduct, rather than incidental or technical participation.

The fiscal note issued by the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) states that the fiscal implications are indeterminate, as the volume and outcome of civil litigation are inherently unpredictable. However, this does not equate to a direct cost or mandate on state agencies or taxpayers. The bill's design ensures that enforcement is carried out by private parties, and any remedies or damages flow through civil channels, not the state treasury.

In sum, HB 7 builds on a well-established legislative foundation in Texas, employing constitutionally strategic tools to enforce restrictions on abortion-inducing drugs. It advances the state's interest in protecting unborn life while maintaining limited government principles, shielding neutral actors, and providing meaningful legal avenues for individuals to hold violators accountable. The procedural safeguards and narrowly tailored liability framework address many of the criticisms commonly raised, and as such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 7.

• Individual Liberty: The bill imposes broad civil liability on those involved in the manufacturing, distribution, or delivery of abortion-inducing drugs in or into Texas, including actions taken outside the state with in-state effects. The bill explicitly excludes liability for pregnant women themselves and carves out exceptions for medical emergencies, miscarriages, and ectopic pregnancies. Furthermore, the bill frames its approach as a defense of the liberty interest of unborn children, emphasizing that life itself is a fundamental liberty from which other liberties flow. In that view, protecting unborn life serves a broader conception of liberty.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces personal responsibility by holding individuals and organizations civilly accountable for knowingly violating restrictions related to abortion-inducing drugs. Those who profit from or deliberately facilitate restricted activities face meaningful consequences under the law. The bill also empowers private individuals, particularly family members of the unborn child, with standing to bring legal action, reinforcing the notion that responsibility for upholding legal and moral standards can and should be shared by citizens. By emphasizing proactive compliance (e.g., adopting corporate policies or taking reasonable precautions), the law encourages responsible conduct across the healthcare, logistics, and digital sectors. This aligns closely with a liberty-oriented belief in self-governance and accountability.
• Free Enterprise: Texas has historically recognized that markets are not morally neutral. In this context, the bill aims to exclude abortion-inducing drugs from the stream of commerce based on the state’s interest in protecting unborn life. The bill avoids criminalizing businesses or seizing assets, and it includes explicit exemptions for neutral service providers (e.g., internet hosts, search engines), thereby preserving space for lawful business activities not directly tied to prohibited conduct.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not involve direct takings, eminent domain, or government intrusion onto private land. Instead, its impact on property is indirect, affecting how private businesses can use their platforms or infrastructure (digital or physical) when abortion-inducing drugs are involved. For instance, a private website or shipping company could face liability if it knowingly facilitates prohibited transactions. Importantly, the bill attempts to safeguard property rights by excluding neutral or passive platforms from liability and requiring a showing of knowing facilitation for suits to proceed. This provides a measured approach that avoids undue burden on unrelated property holders or service providers.
• Limited Government: Rather than creating new criminal penalties or expanding bureaucratic enforcement, the bill relies on private civil actions to enforce its provisions. The state does not investigate, prosecute, or fund lawsuits under this law, and government officials are prohibited from coordinating with private litigants (except via amicus briefs). This decentralization of enforcement reflects a core tenet of limited government, shifting responsibility to the citizenry while reducing the burden on public institutions. Critics may argue that allowing private citizens to act as enforcers effectively deputizes them and may expand the reach of state policy by proxy. However, under the principle of subsidiarity, civil enforcement by citizens can be seen as a form of community self-regulation that limits direct state power.