Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker/ProPublica. Source images: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images, skaman306/Getty Images, Mike Klein/Getty Images.
Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker/ProPublica. Source images: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images, skaman306/Getty Images, Mike Klein/Getty Images.
Life of the Mother
Ken Paxton’s Anti-Abortion Influence Already Extended Beyond Texas. He Could Take It Further in the Senate.
As Texas attorney general, Paxton has advanced anti-abortion policy in his home state and prevailed where others have failed. Allies who’ve witnessed his victories see an opening to keep moving their cause forward if his Senate bid is successful
by Cassandra Jaramillo
October 19, 2026, 5:30 am
Listen 20:45
Contrast Change Appearance Auto Light Dark
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
Early in his tenure as Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton issued a statement commemorating what he believed was a national tragedy.
“It’s impossible to fill the void of more than 50 million missing human beings,” he said in 2016. He was marking the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that protected abortion rights — and had long stood in the way of efforts to ban terminations in early pregnancy, when most abortions occur.
Paxton spent the years that followed testing Roe’s limits and ultimately prevailed where others had failed: In 2021, he defended a near-total abortion ban that Texas legislators had designed to evade conventional legal challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed it to take effect while Roe remained in force.
After the justices overturned Roe the following year, Paxton kept pushing, pursuing new ways to extend the reach of Texas’ restrictions. He prevailed against the Biden administration, picked fights with states that protect abortion access and pioneered strategies that his peers later adopted or expanded.
While Paxton’s tenure as attorney general has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum for his personal scandals and alleged misuse of the office , detractors and allies alike agree that his signal achievement as the state’s top legal official has been advancing restrictions on abortion.
A close look at his record shows a clear pattern in his successes: He relentlessly tests the limits of the law and employs novel legal strategies to advance his goals.
Paxton’s national role as an anti-abortion warrior would change if he wins his U.S. Senate race. As Texas attorney general, he has been able to act largely on his own authority. If he prevails in November, he would become one of 100 senators in a chamber where most legislation needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
But allies who have witnessed his victories see an opening.
“He’ll have the ability to use some of the laws that he’s defended in Texas as influence to draft legislation in the U.S. Senate,” said Mary Elizabeth Castle, director of government relations at Texas Values, a Christian advocacy group that supports a national abortion ban.
Legal experts and advocates on both sides expect he could join colleagues who are pressuring the Food and Drug Administration to revoke its approval of the abortion drug mifepristone.
Anti-abortion activists at the state and federal level are also trying to secure legal rights for fetuses, which could have implications for reproductive care like birth control and in vitro fertilization. Paxton, who has called himself a strong supporter of IVF, recently said he was open to restrictions intended to prevent the loss of fertilized eggs.
His litigation has also raised questions that experts expect the Supreme Court to confront, including whether a federal law, which mandates hospitals provide stabilizing care to patients having an emergency, overrides state abortion bans; whether to treat a fetus as a separate patient that has its own emergency care rights; and how far states can go in pursuing out-of-state doctors who prescribe abortion medication to patients in states where it’s banned.
During the current race, abortion has played a far smaller role than questions about Paxton’s ethics. His Democratic opponent, James Talarico, has said that he supports restoring a federal right to abortion and that his Christian faith calls for an end to “extreme” laws that Paxton has defended and that have forced women to flee the state for emergency abortion care.
Lately, Paxton has said little about abortion — an issue on which he has defended restrictions more stringent than many Texans say they want .
But those who have watched Paxton extend the reach of Texas law beyond its borders are paying close attention to his Senate bid.
Dr. Jennifer Villavicencio, an abortion provider, said she has felt compelled to move her family twice to states with strong laws shielding doctors from out-of-state litigation, partly out of concern that Paxton is creating a blueprint for targeting providers like her.
“It’s very disheartening and scary to think that it’s maybe coming to the U.S. Senate,” she said.
Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker/ProPublica. Source images: Drew Angerer/Getty Images, Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images.
Paxton successfully defended a near-total abortion ban before Roe v. Wade was struck down.
When Paxton became Texas attorney general in 2015, there was no ambiguity about where he stood on abortion.
Raised by an anti-abortion activist , he married his sweetheart from a Christian college, who spoke proudly about the fact that she was adopted , saying her birth mother “ chose life .” She campaigned for Paxton, but he had his own bona fides. A law he’d co-sponsored as a state senator banned almost all abortions after 20 weeks.
Similar 20-week bans had taken root across the country as decades of court rulings chipped away at Roe, but no state had managed to enforce a ban as early as six weeks. More than a dozen tried, passing laws that prohibited abortion when cardiac activity could be detected. One after another, they were blocked by judges.
Then, in 2021, a Texas lawyer named Jonathan Mitchell worked with legislators to craft a law that would withstand similar challenges. Instead of having state officials enforce their “heartbeat law,” the new act, referred to as Senate Bill 8, allowed citizens to sue physicians they suspected were providing abortions. The law offered up to $10,000 if they won.
When abortion providers and President Joe Biden’s administration separately challenged the law in federal court, Paxton’s office argued that state officials couldn’t be ordered to stop enforcing it because they had no power to do so in the first place. Only private citizens could.
“Because the executive officials are expressly prohibited from enforcing SB 8,” his office wrote to the Supreme Court, “there is nothing for a federal court to enjoin.”
The Supreme Court agreed that Paxton couldn’t be sued because “the petitioners have not identified any enforcement authority the attorney general possesses in connection with S. B. 8 that a federal court might enjoin him from exercising.”
The law remained in effect, becoming the first enforceable six-week ban under Roe.
Legislators in Idaho and Oklahoma subsequently passed similar laws.
For Dr. Sam Dickman, who worked at a San Antonio Planned Parenthood, the implications were clear: “I was going to need to either entirely change the type of medicine I was providing or leave the state,” he said. He opted for the latter, moving to Montana, where abortion is legal until viability, or roughly 24 weeks.
Days after the Texas ban took effect, Josseli Barnica arrived at a Houston hospital in the midst of a miscarriage . She was 17 weeks pregnant and her fetus’s head was pressed up against her dilated cervix. Because the situation put her at high risk of developing an infection, medical experts said doctors should have offered to speed up delivery or empty her uterus; the fetus was not viable, and losing the pregnancy was inevitable.
But the fetus’s heart was still beating.
Barnica relayed to her husband what she said her medical providers had told her: “They had to wait until there was no heartbeat,” he told ProPublica in Spanish. “It would be a crime to give her an abortion.”
For 40 hours, Barnica waited, her uterus exposed to bacteria.
She died days later of sepsis. Medical experts told ProPublica her doctors did not follow the proper standard of care and that Barnica’s death was preventable.
In a statement, HCA Healthcare, the hospital chain that treated her, said “our responsibility is to be in compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations” and said that physicians exercise their independent judgment.
Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker/ProPublica. Source images: Drew Angerer/Getty Images, Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images.
Paxton blocked federal guidance for emergency abortion care, with consequences far beyond Texas.
When the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion on June 24, 2022, Paxton dismissed his staff at noon to celebrate. He would later designate the date as a paid office holiday, Sanctity of Life Day.
The Texas Legislature had prepared for the occasion, passing a law that went into effect shortly after the overturning of Roe. The ban threatened doctors with up to 99 years in prison if they performed an abortion. But soon came what Paxton framed as a federal attempt to thwart the state law.
The Biden administration issued a memo to doctors in states with abortion bans saying that a federal emergency care law protected their medical judgment, “regardless of the restrictions in the state.”
The federal Health and Human Services secretary at the time said doctors had an obligation to follow the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, better known as EMTALA. The law requires hospitals that accept federal funding to screen and stabilize every patient who arrives.
For those with complications such as severe preeclampsia, a potentially fatal, pregnancy-related blood pressure disorder, stabilizing a patient might require performing an abortion, even if the state forbids it, the guidance said. “The physician must provide that treatment,” it said, bolding the word “must.”
Paxton sued, accusing the administration of an attempt to use federal law “to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic.”
He argued EMTALA was created to make sure hospitals didn’t dump uninsured patients back on the street without treatment, not to override state laws. He took the argument a step further, suggesting that under EMTALA, doctors might need to consider “the life of the unborn child.”
The argument was novel, six legal experts told ProPublica.
“He’s basically suing the federal government to protect Texas’ right to force pregnant women to not get abortions, even when their health is threatened,” said Greer Donley, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. “I remember thinking, ‘Wow, that’s radical.’”
Medical groups warned patients would die.
But a federal judge sided with Paxton that August, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in January 2024.
The ruling did more than keep the administration from enforcing its EMTALA interpretation in Texas.
It barred the federal government from pursuing cases against members of two anti-abortion medical organizations that had joined Paxton’s suit as plaintiffs, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. This effectively exempted them from having to follow the federal guidance, regardless of where they worked.
It also served as immediate litigation fodder for another state fighting to enforce its own abortion ban.
Idaho had not had the same success in court as Texas. After the Biden administration sued, arguing the state’s ban