AnalysisRead Next
Analysis
James Talarico spars with Catholic professor, claims Bible is 'silent' on abortion
Cassy Cooke
·Spotlight Articles
Pro-life group sued by woman who says she was 'forced' to have two children
The pro-life organization Students for Life of America (SFLA) is facing a lawsuit filed by a Texas woman who claims she was 'forced' to have two children due to the group's efforts to protect preborn babies in the state — yet, the law she is suing under doesn't seem to be related to this situation at all.
A Texas woman using the name Maria Puerto is suing Students for Life of America for $459,782, most of which she will not see if she wins.
She claims that she was 'forced' to have two children because of a pro-life law that Students for Life supported in Texas.
Puerto said she lost her scholarship money and job because of her pregnancy, and her babies' father left during her second pregnancy.
She blames Texas pro-life laws for her circumstances rather than other factors or decisions.
Puerto is suing the group under HB 7, a law that prohibits the manufacture, distribution, mailing, prescribing, or provision of abortion-inducing drugs in Texas and allows private citizens to file civil lawsuits against violators.
It appears this is a scheme for Puerto to get $10,000 for herself, with the rest of the money going to pro-abortion causes, based on the claim that SFLA ordered the abortion pill regimen (despite the purpose of this action — to show how it is far too easy for Texas residents to obtain the drugs).
In an Instagram post, SFLA president Kristan Hawkins announced that she "and three Students for Life staff members are being sued in Texas."
She explained:
Get this, for saving a baby from abortion. That's what we're getting sued in civil court over. A mother who said she was forced to have a baby after an incremental pro-life law was passed that we were helpful in passing — says she was forced to have a baby, therefore, we should pay the cost of rearing her child. About $500,000.
So this is an interesting day. It's not everyday that you get sued for saving babies, so I guess I'm honored to say, 'Yes. Students for Life and my life's mission is working and we're saving babies.' And by the way, incremental pro-life legislation saves babies.
Hawkins also noted that she "feels so bad for this child" — two children — who will always have written proof that their mother wanted to abort them and then let the world know that she didn't want them.
The pro-abortion Amplify Legal filed the lawsuit for a woman who is using the pseudonym Maria Puerto. Amplify Legal is the legal advocacy practice and litigation arm of the group Abortion in America.
Puerto is suing SFLA under HB 7, a law that prohibits the manufacture, distribution, mailing, prescribing, or provision of abortion-inducing drugs in Texas and allows private citizens to file civil lawsuits against violators.
According to the lawsuit:
Texas law apparently does, however, allow anyone, including Ms. Puerto, to seek at least $100,000 from anyone who “mail[s], transport[s], deliver[s], prescribe[s], or provide[s] an abortion-inducing drug in any manner to or from any person or location in this state” or “intends” to do so.
In March 2026, Kristan Mercer Hawkins, Lydia Taylor Davis, Jamie Curry, Megan Roos, and other unknown individuals associated with Students for Life of America, a well-known anti-abortion organization, openly and flagrantly violated this law, the so-called “Woman and Child Protection Act,” also known as House Bill 7.
With nowhere else to turn for assistance, Ms. Puerto is seeking financial compensation from Ms. Hawkins, Ms. Davis, Ms. Curry, Ms. Roos, and Students for Life under H.B. 7 in the amount of $459,782—the average cost of raising two children from birth to age 18 in the state of Texas.
The SFLA staff members allegedly filmed themselves ordering abortion drugs undercover in Texas, according to the lawsuit, to show how easy it is for anyone to obtain the pills. The lawsuit states, "It is thus unclear what Defendants did with the abortion pills and/or if they engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation(s) to obtain the abortion pills. According to [journalist] Ms. Littlefield’s reporting, Ms. Hawkins used the name 'Wanda' in at least one of the orders for abortion pills, while Ms. Davis posed as a 'minor.'"
Amplify Legal alleges that this action violated HB 7. Therefore, the suit claims, since "anyone" can file a civil case against someone for the manufacture, distribution, mailing, prescribing, or provision of abortion-inducing drugs in Texas, Puerto is filing a civll suit against the SFLA members for allegedly calling to order the abortion pill while in Texas.
However, the law has an exception if the drugs are not purchased for the purpose of abortion. It states (emphases added):
Sec. 171A.002. APPLICABILITY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CHAPTER. (a) This chapter does not apply to and a civil action under this chapter may not be brought against:...
(9) a person who manufactures, distributes, mails, transports, delivers, prescribes, provides, or possesses abortion-inducing drugs in this state solely for one or more of the following purposes:
(A) treating a medical emergency;
(B) removing an ectopic pregnancy;
(C) removing a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or
(D) a purpose that does not include performing, inducing, attempting, or assisting an abortion, other than an abortion performed in response to a medical emergency.
The lawsuit admits that SFLA's "Instagram post and associated events appear to be nothing more than a publicity stunt" and the abortion pills were not procured for use in an abortion. Yet, the suit still argues that "their stunt appears to violate the plain language of Texas House Bill 7."
Puerto claims she became pregnant twice while on birth control. After learning she was pregnant with her first child in 2022, she lost her college scholarship because of missed classes due to morning sickness, and she had to leave school. According to the suit, "Puerto was told that because these absences were 'unexcused,' her financial aid was revoked. With no way to pay for her classes, Ms. Puerto was forced to quit school, never to return. 'My great desire was to help my community and my state through this career that I had chosen, but my state did not support me.'"
She was also allegedly fired from her job at a convenience store due to frequent bathroom breaks and the inability to lift heavy objects.
Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded schools, including in relation to pregnancy, childbirth, lactation, and related medical conditions. Under Title IX, schools must provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant students, similar to those it gives to students with temporary medical conditions, including flexible scheduling and work extensions. But, the lawsuit claims Puerto was unaware of this until it was too late to file a lawsuit regarding the pregnancy discrimination she allegedly faced.
Hawkins noted that SFLA "stands alongside pregnant and parenting women to ensure that their Title IX rights aren't being violated" and could have helped Puerto. In the past, SFLA has filed lawsuits against schools for violating pregnant women's Title IX rights as Puerto's appear to have been violated. If she had contacted SFLA at the time of her first pregnancy, she could have received help in keeping her scholarship and staying in school.
Puerto became pregnant again in 2024, at which time she said she became depressed, primarily because she was having a girl. The suit states, "After her first child was born, she had no way to pay for childcare and no way to finish her degree. Finances became increasingly tight. In 2024, Ms. Puerto became pregnant again and the cycle repeated. For the second time, she felt she had no other choice and was forced to carry the pregnancy to term. Ms. Puerto struggled with severe depression throughout her second pregnancy, especially after she learned she was having a daughter. 'When I found out I was having a girl, I felt so much pain. Since Roe was overturned, women have not experienced a free Texas. We have no ability to decide about our own bodies, our own families, our own lives.'"
Yet, she blames Texas for what was ultimately the result of her own use of her freedom.
"I was so young, with every direction in life still an open possibility," Puerto said. "But... Texas laws chose my way for me."
But did they?
Puerto chose to have sex while in college, which carries the risk of pregnancy. Pro-life laws did not force her to have sex, force her to become pregnant, or force her to parent her children rather than place them for adoption; they simply state that she could not intentionally kill her preborn children.
After she became pregnant for the second time, the father of Puerto's children allegedly abandoned her. According to reports, Puerto now shares a bed with her two children in a room at her mother's home. She hasn't found a job that pays her enough money to afford childcare and said Texas has not helped her with childcare, paid leave, housing, or food.
However, single mothers in Texas can receive government assistance including food benefits and monthly cash assistance, housing support, and community services.
But despite filing the lawsuit under the guise of obtaining money to help care for her children, Puerto would only see about two percent (2%) of the compensation if she were to win the case.
Amplify Legal states in the lawsuit, "Maria Puerto is in Dire Need of Resources to Support Her Children," yet if she wins the case, she would only see about two percent (2%)of the financial compensation she is seeking. The suit claims:
Maria Puerto is a twenty-six-year-old single mother of two children, ages three and one. Ms. Puerto is a predominately Spanish-speaking citizen of the United States.
Ms. Puerto never met her father until she was well into her teens. Growing up, her mother worked hard to make ends meet, but often struggled to pay for Ms. Puerto’s school supplies.
For many years throughout her childhood, Ms. Puerto was sexually assaulted by a member of her family. She did not tell anyone of the abuse until she was an adult.
In 2022, Ms. Puerto and her boyfriend learned she was pregnant for the first time.
Because Ms. Puerto had been taking contraception pills every day without fail, the pregnancy came as a complete shock. Still, she did not have access to transportation or the economic resources to pay for travel out of state. And her mother, now elderly and disabled, was relying on her and her siblings for support. “It was either pay for my mom’s medicine or get an abortion.” Ms. Puerto had no choice but to continue the pregnancy.
The case is built around garnering sympathy and support for Puerto, yet If Puerto wins her lawsuit, she would not see the $459,782 she is seeking despite the claim that this amount is "the average cost of raising two children from birth to age 18 in the state of Texas." Instead, she would only get about $10,000; the rest (nearly 98%) would go to the pro-abortion group Jane's Due Process, which helps teenage girls skirt parental consent laws to undergo abortions without their parents' knowledge. As reported by The Texas Tribune:
If she wins the lawsuit, Puerto would be entitled to $10,000 of the award, as she has no connection to the defendants. According to a Tuesday statement by Abortion in America, she plans to give the remaining award to Jane’s Due Process...
In other words, the money wouldn't help a single mom of two; it would force SFLA to fund an abortion organization.
Amplify Legal is the same group that sent Live Action a 'demand letter' in July, attempting to require the pro-life group to stop stating that abortion is 'killing,' among other demands.
Founder and President Lila Rose released the following statement regarding that letter:
“Abortion is an act of killing. It deliberately ends the life of a living human child. That is the truth abortion activists want to forbid anyone from saying out loud. They want abortion placed beyond moral judgment, even when the child targeted is disabled or has received a difficult diagnosis. They know that controlling the language is essential to making abortion easier to accept, because people intuitively understand that abortion kills a child and that every baby deserves a chance at life. Those children are human beings. Their lives have dignity, and they have a right to live.
Americans have every right to say that openly and forcefully, without fear of being dragged into court for refusing to adopt the deceptive language preferred by abortion activists.... Our journalism gives a voice to children in the womb who cannot speak for themselves and reports the truth about abortion and the abortion industry. We will not be pressured into using language that hides what abortion does or makes the killing of a preborn child easier to accept.... Threats will not stop us from calling abortion what it is or from fighting for the right of every child to live. We will keep fighting, and we will win.”
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Cassy Cooke
·
Analysis
Bridget Sielicki
·
Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·
Fact Checks
Nancy Flanders
·
Analysis
Angeline Tan
·
Analysis
Bridget Sielicki
·
Abortion Pill
Newsroom
·
Activism
Newsroom
·
Analysis
Newsroom
·
Media
Newsroom
·
Media
Newsroom
·Pro-life group sued by woman who says she was 'forced' to have two children
The pro-life organization Students for Life of America (SFLA) is facing a lawsuit filed by a Texas woman who claims she was 'forced' to have two children due to the group's efforts to protect preborn babies in the state — yet, the law she is suing under doesn't seem to be related to this situation at all.
A Texas woman using the name Maria Puerto is suing Students for Life of America for $459,782, most of which she will not see if she wins.
She claims that she was 'forced' to have two children because of a pro-life law that Students for Life supported in Texas.
Puerto said she lost her scholarship money and job because of her pregnancy, and her babies' father left during her second pregnancy.
She blames Texas pro-life laws for her circumstances rather than other factors or decisions.
Puerto is suing the group under HB 7, a law that prohibits the manufacture, distribution, mailing, prescribing, or provision of abortion-inducing drugs in Texas and allows private citizens to file civil lawsuits against violators.
It appears this is a scheme for Puerto to get $10,000 for herself, with the rest of the money going to pro-abortion causes, based on the claim that SFLA ordered the abortion pill regimen (despite the purpose of this action — to show how it is far too easy for Texas residents to obtain the drugs).
In an Instagram post, SFLA president Kristan Hawkins announced that she "and three Students for Life staff members are being sued in Texas."
She explained:
Get this, for saving a baby from abortion. That's what we're getting sued in civil court over. A mother who said she was forced to have a baby after an incremental pro-life law was passed that we were helpful in passing — says she was forced to have a baby, therefore, we should pay the cost of rearing her child. About $500,000.
So this is an interesting day. It's not everyday that you get sued for saving babies, so I guess I'm honored to say, 'Yes. Students for Life and my life's mission is working and we're saving babies.' And by the way, incremental pro-life legislation saves babies.
Hawkins also noted that she "feels so bad for this child" — two children — who will always have written proof that their mother wanted to abort them and then let the world know that she didn't want them.
The pro-abortion Amplify Legal filed the lawsuit for a woman who is using the pseudonym Maria Puerto. Amplify Legal is the legal advocacy practice and litigation arm of the group Abortion in America.
Puerto is suing SFLA under HB 7, a law that prohibits the manufacture, distribution, mailing, prescribing, or provision of abortion-inducing drugs in Texas and allows private citizens to file civil lawsuits against violators.
According to the lawsuit:
Texas law apparently does, however, allow anyone, including Ms. Puerto, to seek at least $100,000 from anyone who “mail[s], transport[s], deliver[s], prescribe[s], or provide[s] an abortion-inducing drug in any manner to or from any person or location in this state” or “intends” to do so.
In March 2026, Kristan Mercer Hawkins, Lydia Taylor Davis, Jamie Curry, Megan Roos, and other unknown individuals associated with Students for Life of America, a well-known anti-abortion organization, openly and flagrantly violated this law, the so-called “Woman and Child Protection Act,” also known as House Bill 7.
With nowhere else to turn for assistance, Ms. Puerto is seeking financial compensation from Ms. Hawkins, Ms. Davis, Ms. Curry, Ms. Roos, and Students for Life under H.B. 7 in the amount of $459,782—the average cost of raising two children from birth to age 18 in the state of Texas.
The SFLA staff members allegedly filmed themselves ordering abortion drugs undercover in Texas, according to the lawsuit, to show how easy it is for anyone to obtain the pills. The lawsuit states, "It is thus unclear what Defendants did with the abortion pills and/or if they engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation(s) to obtain the abortion pills. According to [journalist] Ms. Littlefield’s reporting, Ms. Hawkins used the name 'Wanda' in at least one of the orders for abortion pills, while Ms. Davis posed as a 'minor.'"
Amplify Legal alleges that this action violated HB 7. Therefore, the suit claims, since "anyone" can file a civil case against someone for the manufacture, distribution, mailing, prescribing, or provision of abortion-inducing drugs in Texas, Puerto is filing a civll suit against the SFLA members for allegedly calling to order the abortion pill while in Texas.
However, the law has an exception if the drugs are not purchased for the purpose of abortion. It states (emphases added):
Sec. 171A.002. APPLICABILITY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CHAPTER. (a) This chapter does not apply to and a civil action under this chapter may not be brought against:...
(9) a person who manufactures, distributes, mails, transports, delivers, prescribes, provides, or possesses abortion-inducing drugs in this state solely for one or more of the following purposes:
(A) treating a medical emergency;
(B) removing an ectopic pregnancy;
(C) removing a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or
(D) a purpose that does not include performing, inducing, attempting, or assisting an abortion, other than an abortion performed in response to a medical emergency.
The lawsuit admits that SFLA's "Instagram post and associated events appear to be nothing more than a publicity stunt" and the abortion pills were not procured for use in an abortion. Yet, the suit still argues that "their stunt appears to violate the plain language of Texas House Bill 7."
Puerto claims she became pregnant twice while on birth control. After learning she was pregnant with her first child in 2022, she lost her college scholarship because of missed classes due to morning sickness, and she had to leave school. According to the suit, "Puerto was told that because these absences were 'unexcused,' her financial aid was revoked. With no way to pay for her classes, Ms. Puerto was forced to quit school, never to return. 'My great desire was to help my community and my state through this career that I had chosen, but my state did not support me.'"
She was also allegedly fired from her job at a convenience store due to frequent bathroom breaks and the inability to lift heavy objects.
Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded schools, including in relation to pregnancy, childbirth, lactation, and related medical conditions. Under Title IX, schools must provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant students, similar to those it gives to students with temporary medical conditions, including flexible scheduling and work extensions. But, the lawsuit claims Puerto was unaware of this until it was too late to file a lawsuit regarding the pregnancy discrimination she allegedly faced.
Hawkins noted that SFLA "stands alongside pregnant and parenting women to ensure that their Title IX rights aren't being violated" and could have helped Puerto. In the past, SFLA has filed lawsuits against schools for violating pregnant women's Title IX rights as Puerto's appear to have been violated. If she had contacted SFLA at the time of her first pregnancy, she could have received help in keeping her scholarship and staying in school.
Puerto became pregnant again in 2024, at which time she said she became depressed, primarily because she was having a girl. The suit states, "After her first child was born, she had no way to pay for childcare and no way to finish her degree. Finances became increasingly tight. In 2024, Ms. Puerto became pregnant again and the cycle repeated. For the second time, she felt she had no other choice and was forced to carry the pregnancy to term. Ms. Puerto struggled with severe depression throughout her second pregnancy, especially after she learned she was having a daughter. 'When I found out I was having a girl, I felt so much pain. Since Roe was overturned, women have not experienced a free Texas. We have no ability to decide about our own bodies, our own families, our own lives.'"
Yet, she blames Texas for what was ultimately the result of her own use of her freedom.
"I was so young, with every direction in life still an open possibility," Puerto said. "But... Texas laws chose my way for me."
But did they?
Puerto chose to have sex while in college, which carries the risk of pregnancy. Pro-life laws did not force her to have sex, force her to become pregnant, or force her to parent her children rather than place them for adoption; they simply state that she could not intentionally kill her preborn children.
After she became pregnant for the second time, the father of Puerto's children allegedly abandoned her. According to reports, Puerto now shares a bed with her two children in a room at her mother's home. She hasn't found a job that pays her enough money to afford childcare and said Texas has not helped her with childcare, paid leave, housing, or food.
However, single mothers in Texas can receive government assistance including food benefits and monthly cash assistance, housing support, and community services.
But despite filing the lawsuit under the guise of obtaining money to help care for her children, Puerto would only see about two percent (2%) of the compensation if she were to win the case.
Amplify Legal states in the lawsuit, "Maria Puerto is in Dire Need of Resources to Support Her Children," yet if she wins the case, she would only see about two percent (2%)of the financial compensation she is seeking. The suit claims:
Maria Puerto is a twenty-six-year-old single mother of two children, ages three and one. Ms. Puerto is a predominately Spanish-speaking citizen of the United States.
Ms. Puerto never met her father until she was well into her teens. Growing up, her mother worked hard to make ends meet, but often struggled to pay for Ms. Puerto’s school supplies.
For many years throughout her childhood, Ms. Puerto was sexually assaulted by a member of her family. She did not tell anyone of the abuse until she was an adult.
In 2022, Ms. Puerto and her boyfriend learned she was pregnant for the first time.
Because Ms. Puerto had been taking contraception pills every day without fail, the pregnancy came as a complete shock. Still, she did not have access to transportation or the economic resources to pay for travel out of state. And her mother, now elderly and disabled, was relying on her and her siblings for support. “It was either pay for my mom’s medicine or get an abortion.” Ms. Puerto had no choice but to continue the pregnancy.
The case is built around garnering sympathy and support for Puerto, yet If Puerto wins her lawsuit, she would not see the $459,782 she is seeking despite the claim that this amount is "the average cost of raising two children from birth to age 18 in the state of Texas." Instead, she would only get about $10,000; the rest (nearly 98%) would go to the pro-abortion group Jane's Due Process, which helps teenage girls skirt parental consent laws to undergo abortions without their parents' knowledge. As reported by The Texas Tribune:
If she wins the lawsuit, Puerto would be entitled to $10,000 of the award, as she has no connection to the defendants. According to a Tuesday statement by Abortion in America, she plans to give the remaining award to Jane’s Due Process...
In other words, the money wouldn't help a single mom of two; it would force SFLA to fund an abortion organization.
Amplify Legal is the same group that sent Live Action a 'demand letter' in July, attempting to require the pro-life group to stop stating that abortion is 'killing,' among other demands.
Founder and President Lila Rose released the following statement regarding that letter:
“Abortion is an act of killing. It deliberately ends the life of a living human child. That is the truth abortion activists want to forbid anyone from saying out loud. They want abortion placed beyond moral judgment, even when the child targeted is disabled or has received a difficult diagnosis. They know that controlling the language is essential to making abortion easier to accept, because people intuitively understand that abortion kills a child and that every baby deserves a chance at life. Those children are human beings. Their lives have dignity, and they have a right to live.
Americans have every right to say that openly and forcefully, without fear of being dragged into court for refusing to adopt the deceptive language preferred by abortion activists.... Our journalism gives a voice to children in the womb who cannot speak for themselves and reports the truth about abortion and the abortion industry. We will not be pressured into using language that hides what abortion does or makes the killing of a preborn child easier to accept.... Threats will not stop us from calling abortion what it is or from fighting for the right of every child to live. We will keep fighting, and we will win.”
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Cassy Cooke
·Analysis
Bridget Sielicki
·Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·Fact Checks
Nancy Flanders
·Analysis
Angeline Tan
·Analysis
Bridget Sielicki
·Abortion Pill
Newsroom
·Activism
Newsroom
·Analysis
Newsroom
·Media
Newsroom
·Media
Newsroom
·