According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 2880 are currently indeterminate. The central reason for this uncertainty is the bill's reliance on civil litigation, particularly through private rights of action, to enforce prohibitions against abortion-inducing drugs. Since it is unknown how frequently these lawsuits would be filed or what the outcomes might be, especially regarding potential damages awarded or costs recouped, the state cannot reliably estimate changes in state revenue or expenditures.

The Office of the Attorney General stated that it does not expect a significant fiscal impact on its operations as a result of the bill, even though it would be granted parens patriae standing to sue on behalf of unborn children and would have concurrent authority to enforce abortion-related criminal statutes. This suggests the agency either anticipates minimal enforcement activity or plans to absorb any new duties with existing resources.

Similarly, the Office of Court Administration could not project the fiscal impact, likely due to the unpredictable volume of civil cases the bill could generate. An influx of complex civil lawsuits, especially involving jurisdictional challenges or out-of-state defendants, could place a strain on the judicial system, but without clarity on case volume or court outcomes, fiscal modeling is difficult.

Finally, the Comptroller of Public Accounts was also unable to assess how the changes might affect revenue collection. This is likely because any financial impact would be indirect, depending on penalties awarded, litigation-related settlements, or the chilling effect on related economic activity. Local governments may face similar uncertainty, especially if court workloads or enforcement responsibilities are affected.

In summary, while SB 2880 could result in new civil enforcement activity and potentially influence court and legal system workloads, the unpredictable nature of private lawsuits makes it impossible at this time to accurately estimate the bill's fiscal impact on either state agencies or local jurisdictions.

SB 2880, the Women and Child Protection Act, provides Texas with a strategic, constitutionally grounded framework to further defend life and deter illegal abortion activity in the wake of Roe v. Wade’s reversal. While elective abortion is prohibited under Texas law, abortion-inducing drugs continue to be trafficked through the mail and online, often from other states or countries. SB 2880 directly responds to this growing underground industry by creating new, enforceable civil remedies designed to stop illegal activity at its source.

Crucially, SB 2880 establishes two distinct civil liability tools that work in tandem to provide justice and deterrence:

• Wrongful Death and Personal Injury Actions – The bill allows the mother or father of an unborn child, or a woman injured by an abortion-inducing drug, to bring civil suits for wrongful death or personal injury. These suits create a direct path for families to hold bad actors accountable for harm suffered through illegal abortion pill distribution.
• Qui Tam Citizen Enforcement Actions – SB 2880 also empowers any citizen of Texas to bring qui tam lawsuits against individuals or entities who violate the law by manufacturing, mailing, distributing, or facilitating the procurement of abortion-inducing drugs. This citizen-led enforcement mechanism mirrors the successful strategy used in the Texas Heartbeat Act, which maximized accountability while minimizing direct state intervention.

By channeling enforcement through private civil actions rather than state criminal prosecution, SB 2880 respects constitutional boundaries while empowering individuals to help uphold Texas law. The bill includes clear protections for women seeking abortions, focusing liability squarely on distributors, online facilitators, and payment processors who profit from illegal activity. Additionally, the bill’s tailored jurisdictional provisions, market-share liability clause, and long statute of limitations ensure its effectiveness in the face of evolving tactics by abortion providers.

SB 2880 reflects a holistic approach: protecting unborn life, deterring dangerous mail-order abortions, and ensuring that victims and citizens have legal tools to act. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 2880, affirming Texas’s leadership in the pro-life movement and ensuring our laws continue to meet the threats posed by the abortion industry’s post-Roe strategies.

• Individual Liberty: The bill restricts the ability of individuals to access and distribute abortion-inducing drugs, including through speech and digital platforms. From one angle, this may appear to curtail individual medical autonomy and freedom of expression. However, supporters argue that the bill defends the liberty of unborn children, whose right to life is seen as foundational to all other rights, and that liberty must be balanced with legal protections for others, especially vulnerable human life. The bill is carefully designed to target distributors and facilitators, reinforcing the notion that liberty is not a license to harm.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill places accountability on actors who traffic, fund, or facilitate illegal abortion services. It shifts legal consequences toward entities that operate in defiance of Texas law and seeks to empower individuals, especially parents of harmed women or unborn children, to hold bad actors accountable. By using civil enforcement and encouraging citizen engagement, the bill reinforces a culture of personal responsibility in defending community standards and the rule of law.
• Free Enterprise: From a free-market perspective, the bill introduces significant constraints on sectors involved in pharmaceutical distribution, online commerce, and digital services. It imposes legal liability on platforms, websites, and financial services that aid the delivery or promotion of abortion drugs, which may deter lawful businesses from offering neutral services. Critics may see this as government overreach into voluntary transactions. Supporters, however, would argue that true free enterprise cannot exist in a system that allows illicit and dangerous activity to flourish unchecked and that enforcement of moral norms is a legitimate function of law in preserving public order.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not involve physical takings or eminent domain but does raise questions about informational property (e.g., domain names, hosted content, digital platforms). Liability for maintaining or creating content that facilitates abortion access could affect website operators and platform developers. However, the bill includes specific carve-outs and immunity for ISPs, search engines, and cloud providers who merely provide access, suggesting a tailored effort to respect property interests while enforcing state law.
• Limited Government: The bill's design—delegating enforcement to private citizens—reflects a novel attempt to minimize direct government action while ensuring compliance with state policy. However, it also creates a new layer of quasi-enforcement through litigation, which can be seen as expanding the reach of state power through private means. Critics argue that this could undermine due process or judicial neutrality by flooding courts with ideologically driven lawsuits. Proponents counter that it reflects an appropriately restrained approach that avoids direct state punishment and judicial overreach, instead empowering civil society to uphold law and order.

• HB 5510 (Same As)