According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 7 are indeterminate. The core uncertainty stems from the bill’s reliance on civil enforcement through private qui tam actions, which makes it difficult to predict how many lawsuits will be filed, what damages may be awarded, or how state or local revenue might be affected.

The bill authorizes the Attorney General to bring civil actions on behalf of unborn children in certain cases involving violations of abortion-related laws. While this expands the enforcement role of the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), the fiscal note assumes that any associated costs could be absorbed within the agency’s existing resources and budget.

However, the Office of Court Administration (OCA) states that it is unable to project the bill’s fiscal impact on the state judiciary. This is due to the unknown volume and complexity of civil litigation that may be triggered by the bill’s expansive provisions. Similarly, the Comptroller cannot estimate the effect on state revenue resulting from potential increases in civil penalties or court costs.

For local governments, the fiscal impact is also undetermined. The volume of new civil actions filed in local courts and their potential influence on court administration, staffing, or local fee revenue remains speculative at this stage.

SB 7, the Woman and Child Protection Act, continues Texas’s post-Roe enforcement strategy by expanding civil enforcement mechanisms against the manufacture, distribution, mailing, prescribing, or provision of abortion-inducing drugs. It creates Chapter 171A of the Health & Safety Code, prohibiting such actions except in narrowly defined circumstances, including medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, or miscarriage treatment. Like its predecessor, SB 7 shields neutral service providers, such as internet service providers, search engines, and cloud hosting platforms, from liability when they do not actively participate in the restricted activities.

The bill’s enforcement relies almost entirely on private civil actions through a qui tam framework, excluding governmental officials and political subdivisions from bringing suit. Any private person may initiate litigation and seek injunctive relief and statutory damages of at least $100,000 per violation, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. This mechanism mirrors the structure first seen in the Texas Heartbeat Act (SB 8, 2021), aiming to deter violations while avoiding direct state enforcement. In addition, SB 7 affirms and strengthens the Attorney General’s parens patriae authority to bring civil actions on behalf of unborn children, further reinforcing the state’s interest in protecting prenatal life through non-criminal channels.

SB 7 also introduces a complex jurisdictional architecture to insulate the statute from legal challenge. It invalidates choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses that might relocate disputes to more permissive jurisdictions. It narrows the range of available defenses, exempts actions from the Texas Citizens Participation Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and grants exclusive intermediate appellate jurisdiction to the newly created Fifteenth Court of Appeals. Sovereign immunity protections are reinforced, and fee-shifting provisions are revised to limit the recovery of legal costs by unsuccessful challengers. Taken together, these elements form a robust, procedurally insulated legal infrastructure. Accordingly, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 7.

• Individual Liberty: The bill restricts access to and distribution of abortion-inducing drugs, thereby limiting individual autonomy in certain healthcare decisions. However, it frames these restrictions as a defense of the liberty interest of unborn children, positing the right to life as paramount within the hierarchy of rights.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill increases accountability for actors who facilitate, profit from, or deliberately enable prohibited abortion activity. Distributors, facilitators, and service providers who knowingly participate in the chain of supply for abortion-inducing drugs face significant civil liability, creating a strong deterrent against such conduct. The citizen enforcement structure also gives individuals, particularly those directly affected, such as parents of an unborn child, legal tools to hold violators accountable. This reinforces the idea that maintaining community standards and compliance with the law is a shared responsibility.
• Free Enterprise: Markets are not value-neutral, and the law has a role in preventing the commercialization of activity deemed harmful to life and public welfare. The bill protects the integrity of commerce by excluding inherently prohibited goods and services.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not involve eminent domain or direct seizure of property. However, it does impose liability that can affect the use of informational property, such as online platforms, websites, and hosted content, if those are used to facilitate prohibited transactions. This raises questions about the scope of liability for property owners in digital spaces. The bill attempts to balance this by carving out exemptions for neutral service providers like ISPs, search engines, and cloud hosts, preserving their property interests when they are not directly involved in prohibited acts.
• Limited Government: Rather than expanding state enforcement agencies or criminal penalties, the bill channels enforcement through private civil litigation. Proponents see this as an example of limited government because it reduces direct state involvement, minimizes taxpayer-funded enforcement, and allows private citizens to uphold the law. Critics counter that enabling widespread private lawsuits may effectively expand the reach of state policy through private actors, creating a form of quasi-government enforcement that can still impose significant burdens on courts and defendants. Nonetheless, from the limited-government perspective, the bill avoids direct government prosecution and retains enforcement within the civil legal system.