Judge orders New York OB-GYN to stop sending abortion pills to Texas, pay $100K fine
A North Texas judge ordered a New York OB-GYN to stop sending abortion pills to Texans and to pay a $100,000 fine for sending the medications to a woman in the state on Thursday, setting up a legal battle that could change the landscape of abortion access in the U.S.
The ruling, obtained by the American-Statesman, is the first in a case challenging "shield laws" designed to prevent states with abortion bans, like Texas, from punishing doctors in other states that support the procedure, like New York.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in December sued Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter, who is licensed in New York and co-founded the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine Access in 2022, for allegedly prescribing and mailing mifepristone and misoprostol to a 20-year-old woman from Collin County, Paxton's home turf in North Texas. Both drugs are used to induce abortions and help clear miscarriages.
The original lawsuit noted that the biological father — who was not previously informed about the pregnancy, according to the complaint — took the woman to the hospital after she began to hemorrhage. After he learned she had terminated the pregnancy, he discovered the empty pill boxes at the woman's residence.
Carpenter has not yet appointed an attorney in the case or responded to the lawsuit, Collin County court records show. She did not appear at a court hearing Wednesday, according to the New York Times, which first reported on the Thursday ruling.
Because Carpenter "failed to file any answer or responsive pleading" to the lawsuit despite repeated notifications, the allegations in Texas' case against her were admitted as fact, the order states.
The ruling by Judge Bryan Gantt, whom Republican Gov. Greg Abbott appointed to the 471st District Court in September, is a default ruling that permanently enjoins Carpenter from "prescribing abortion-inducing drugs to Texas residents" and fines her $100,000 and around $13,000 in attorney's fees for violating Texas' near-total abortion ban. The fees will accrue at an interest rate of 7.5% each day until paid.
Gant wrote that "an unborn child died" as a result of the physician's actions.
New York's 2022 shield law bars public entities from cooperating with out-of-state investigations into reproductive health care services. It also protects against subpoenas and witness summonses, and prohibits the extradition of lawsuit defendants to other states.
Texas has banned abortions in almost all instances except when a pregnant person faces a "life-threatening condition," with no exceptions for rape, incest or fatal fetal anomalies.
Paxton's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the case. Carpenter did not respond to the Statesman's repeated attempts to reach her by phone Thursday.
Reproductive law scholar Mary Ziegler previously told the Statesman that she expects the lawsuit will eventually be moved to federal court and could end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. The University of California at Davis School of Law professor also noted that New York's shield law allows doctors to sue anyone who sues them for providing abortion-related telemedicine services.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas judge orders New York OB-GYN to stop sending abortion pills
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
8 hours ago
- Miami Herald
US Could Make Childbirth Free, To Tackle Falling Birth Rates
America could make childbirth free for privately-insured families, in an effort to tackle declining birth rates. The bipartisan Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act, which would designate maternity care as an essential health benefit under the Affordable Care Act, was introduced in the Senate in May. If passed, insurance companies would be required to cover all childbirth-related expenses, including prenatal care, ultrasounds, delivery and postpartum care, without any co-pays or deductibles. Medicaid, America's government‐funded health insurance program, already covers these costs. Democratic New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who has cosponsored the bill, told Newsweek: "Even with insurance, the costs associated with having a baby can be astronomical, and expenses are even greater for women who have health complications during pregnancy, a high-deductible insurance plan, or gaps in their coverage. By requiring insurance companies to fully cover care throughout pregnancy and a year postpartum, this bill will make childbirth more affordable for families." It comes amid growing concerns about America's population. Fertility rates are projected to average 1.6 births per woman over the next three decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office's latest forecast released this year. This number is well below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman required to maintain a stable population without immigration. The Donald Trump administration has made this issue one of its priorities, the White House exploring giving women a "baby bonus" of $5,000, according to an April New York Times report. Many trying to tackle this global issue have called for public health policies and financial plans to help make it easier for couples to have children in society. The financial crisis and its effect on housing, inflation and pay is generally named as a major contributor to people's decisions to delay having children, to have fewer children or not to have them at all. Republican Mississippi Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, who introduced the bill along with Gillibrand, Democratic Virginia Senator Time Kaine and Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, said she hopes her bill will help change this. "Bringing a child into the world is costly enough without piling on cost-share fees that saddle many mothers and families with debt. This legislation would take away some of the burden for childbearing generations," she said in May. "By relieving financial stresses associated with pregnancy and childbirth, hopefully more families will be encouraged to embrace the beautiful gift and responsibility of parenthood." Pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum care average a total of $18,865 with average out-of-pocket payments totaling $2,854, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research organization, based on data from claims between 2018 and 2022. Financial concerns are repeatedly cited as a reason for not having children. Indeed, just a few days ago, the United Nations Population Fund warned of a global birth rate crisis, after finding that one in five had not had or did not expect to have the number of children they wanted. Some 39 percent said this was because of financial limitations. But Suzanne Bell, who studies fertility and related behaviors with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that while "making childbirth cheaper or free is incredibly important," she does not think it will effect the birth rate. "The cost of raising a child, in particular the cost of child care, is very high and far outweighs the cost of childbirth," she told Newsweek. "We desperately need policies that support families with the cost of child care, especially families with low incomes." Beth Jarosz, a senior program director U.S. programs at the Population Reference Bureau, agreed that "reducing health care costs is important, but may not be enough to move the needle on births." "The cost of childbirth is just one of the many costs of having a child, and people are also reeling from the much bigger costs of child care, housing, and other necessities," she told Newsweek. Theodore D Cosco, a research fellow at the University of Oxford's Institute of Population Aging, called the bill "a step in the right direction" but said the same as Bell and Jarosz. "Parents generally aren't deciding whether to have children based on a $3,000 delivery bill, they're looking at the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent actually raising the child," he told Newsweek. But he added: "The policy certainly carries some symbolic weight, signaling bipartisan support for families and could potentially help build momentum for broader reforms, such as child care subsidies or paid parental leave." The other concern is that, while financial concerns are generally accepted as a major contributor to declining birth rates, they are not the lone cause. Bell said that even the policies she calls for "are also unlikely to increase the birth rate, as evidence from other countries with much more supportive policies suggest." Norway is considered a global leader in parental leave and child care policies, and the United Nations International Children's Fund (UNICEF) ranks it among the top countries for family-friendly policies. But it too is facing a birth rate crisis. Norway offers parents 12 months of shared paid leave for birth and an additional year each afterward. It also made kindergarten (similar to a U.S. day care) a statutory right for all children aged one or older in 2008. The government subsidizes the policy to make it possible for "women and men to combine work and family life," as Norway's former Minister of Children, Equality, and Social Inclusion Solveig Horne said at a parental leave event in 2016. And yet, Norway's fertility rate has dropped dramatically from 1.98 children per woman in 2009 to 1.44 children per woman in 2024, according to official figures. The rate for 2023 (1.40) was the lowest ever recorded fertility rate in the country. Financial barriers "are only part of the picture," Cosco said, "psychological, cultural, and structural factors matter too." Newsweek spoke to several experts about Norway specifically, who all cited recent culture changes. For example, "young adults are more likely to live alone" and "young couples split up more frequently than before," Rannveig Kaldager Hart, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Centre for Fertility and Health said. He went on to speak about "intensive parenting," which refers to the modern parenting style in which parents invest time, money and energy into creating successful adults. The expectations of this parenting style "may cause some to postpone or have fewer children than they otherwise would," Hart said. Nevertheless, backers of the American bill seem to believe that it may be part of the solution. "Being pro-family means fostering an economy that makes it feasible to raise a child. But too often, parents find themselves dealing with sky-high medical bills following the birth of a child. This legislation would eliminate out-of-pocket maternity costs for families with private health insurance and prohibit private carriers from imposing cost-sharing on beneficiaries, empowering parents to focus on what matters most," said Hawley. Related Articles Warning Of Global Birth Rate 'Crisis' After Study Of 14 CountriesChina Makes Childbirth Change Amid Falling Birth RateTrump Administration To Give $1,000 Boost to All Newborn BabiesMore Gen Z Delay Having Kids Than Millennials Amid Birth Rate Decline Fears 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Newsweek
8 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump Administration Shares Medicaid Data With Deportation Officials: Report
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's administration provided immigration officials with the personal data of millions of Medicaid recipients this week, including their immigration status, the Associated Press reported. Newsweek contacted the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for comment on Saturday via online press inquiry forms. Why It Matters During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump pledged to carry out the largest mass deportation program in U.S. history. Since returning to office on January 20, the president has overseen widespread Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations across the country. The administration's use of Medicaid data, which could be used to track migrants, has raised questions about data security and federal government power. What To Know Citing an internal memo and emails, the AP reported that two close advisers to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered officials at the CMS to transfer Medicaid data to immigration enforcement personnel at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Tuesday. The publication said the order was given after Medicaid employees initially sought to prevent the transfer based on legal and ethical concerns, and that they were given 54 minutes to comply with the renewed request. The information handed over included data from California, Washington state, Illinois and Washington, D.C.—all of which allow non-U.S. citizens to apply for state-funded Medicaid. President Donald Trump in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 12. President Donald Trump in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 12. SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY DHS employees' use of the data could affect migrants' ability to apply for permanent residency or citizenship if they have received federally funded Medicaid. Under the Trump administration's direction, the Internal Revenue Service has also been providing information to ICE that could help track illegal migrants. A legal bid to block the order was defeated in May. Last month, the CMS announced a review into Medicaid enrollment to ensure federal money had not been used to fund coverage for those with "unsatisfactory immigration status." The agency said the move was to comply with the "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders" executive order that Trump issued on February 19. What People Are Saying Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, said in statement provided to Newsweek: "HHS and CMS take the integrity of the Medicaid program and the protection of American taxpayer dollars extremely seriously. With respect to the recent data sharing between CMS and DHS, HHS acted entirely within its legal authority—and in full compliance with all applicable laws—to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them. He continued: "This action is not unprecedented. What is unprecedented is the systemic neglect and policy failures under the Biden-Harris administration that opened the floodgates for illegal immigrants to exploit Medicaid—and forced hardworking Americans to foot the bill." Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, said Trump had "promised to protect Medicaid for eligible beneficiaries. To keep that promise after Joe Biden flooded our country with tens of millions of illegal aliens CMS and DHS are exploring an initiative to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving Medicaid benefits that are meant for law-abiding Americans." California Governor Gavin Newsom said: "This potential data transfer brought to our attention by the AP is extremely concerning, and if true, potentially unlawful, particularly given numerous headlines highlighting potential improper federal use of personal information and federal actions to target the personal information of Americans." What Happens Next The Trump administration is expected to continue its hard-line immigration policies. It remains to be seen whether the transfer of data from the HHS to the DHS will be challenged in court.
Atlantic
8 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Senator Who Failed America on Vaccines
It's easy to forget that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s assault on vaccines—including, most recently, his gutting of the expert committee that guides American vaccine policy—might have been avoided. Four months ago, his nomination for health secretary was in serious jeopardy. The deciding vote seemed to be in the hands of one Republican senator: Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. A physician who gained prominence by vaccinating low-income kids in his home state, Cassidy was wary of the longtime vaccine conspiracist. 'I have been struggling with your nomination,' he told Kennedy during his confirmation hearings in January. Then Cassidy caved. In the speech he gave on the Senate floor explaining his decision, Cassidy said that he'd vote to confirm Kennedy only because he had extracted a number of concessions from the nominee—chief among them that he would preserve, 'without changes,' the very CDC committee Kennedy overhauled this week. Since then, Cassidy has continued to give Kennedy the benefit of the doubt. On Monday, after Kennedy dismissed all 17 members of the vaccine advisory committee, Cassidy posted on X that he was working with Kennedy to prevent the open roles from being filled with 'people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion.' The senator has failed, undeniably and spectacularly. One new appointee, Robert Malone, has repeatedly spread misinformation (or what he prefers to call 'scientific dissent') about vaccines. Another appointee, Vicky Pebsworth, is on the board of an anti-vax nonprofit, the National Vaccine Information Center. Cassidy may keep insisting that he is doing all he can to stand up for vaccines. But he already had his big chance to do so, and he blew it. Now, with the rest of America, he's watching the nation's vaccine future take a nosedive. So far, the senator hasn't appeared interested in any kind of mea culpa for his faith in Kennedy's promises. On Thursday, I caught Cassidy as he hurried out of a congressional hearing room. He was still reviewing the appointees, he told me and several other reporters who gathered around him. When I chased after him down the hallway to ask more questions, he told me, 'I'll be putting out statements, and I'll let those statements stand for themselves.' A member of his staff dismissed me with a curt 'Thank you, sir.' Cassidy's staff has declined repeated requests for an interview with the senator since the confirmation vote in January. With the exception of Mitch McConnell, every GOP senator voted to confirm Kennedy. They all have to own the health secretary's actions. But Cassidy seemed to be the Republican most concerned about Kennedy's nomination, and there was a good reason to think that the doctor would vote his conscience. In 2021, Cassidy was one of seven Senate Republicans who voted to convict Donald Trump on an impeachment charge after the insurrection at the Capitol. But this time, the senator—who is up for reelection next year, facing a more MAGA-friendly challenger—ultimately fell in line. Cassidy tried to have it both ways: elevating Kennedy to his job while also vowing to constrain him. In casting his confirmation vote, Cassidy implied that the two would be in close communication, and that Kennedy had asked for his input on hiring decisions. The two reportedly had breakfast in March to discuss the health secretary's plan to dramatically reshape the department. 'Senator Cassidy speaks regularly with secretary Kennedy and believes those conversations are much more productive when they're held in private, not through press headlines,' a spokesperson for Cassidy wrote in an email. (A spokesperson for HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.) At times, it has appeared as though Cassidy's approach has had some effect on the health secretary. Amid the measles outbreak in Texas earlier this year, Kennedy baselessly questioned the safety of the MMR vaccine. In April, after two unvaccinated children died, Cassidy posted on X: 'Everyone should be vaccinated! There is no treatment for measles. No benefit to getting measles. Top health officials should say so unequivocally b/4 another child dies.' Cassidy didn't call out Kennedy by name, but the health secretary appeared to get the message. Later that day, Kennedy posted that the measles vaccine was the most effective way to stave off illness. ('Completely agree,' Cassidy responded.) All things considered, that's a small victory. Despite Kennedy's claims that he is not an anti-vaxxer, he has enacted a plainly anti-vaccine agenda. Since being confirmed, he has pushed out the FDA's top vaccine regulator, hired a fellow vaccine skeptic to investigate the purported link between autism and shots, and questioned the safety of childhood vaccinations currently recommended by the CDC. As my colleague Katherine J. Wu wrote this week, 'Whether he will admit to it or not, he is serving the most core goal of the anti-vaccine movement—eroding access to, and trust in, immunization.' The reality is that back channels can be only so effective. Cassidy's main power is to call Kennedy before the Senate health committee, which he chairs, and demand an explanation for Kennedy's new appointees to the CDC's vaccine-advisory committee. Cassidy might very well do that. In February, he said that Kennedy would 'come before the committee on a quarterly basis, if requested.' Kennedy did appear before Cassidy's committee last month to answer questions about his efforts to institute mass layoffs at his agency. Some Republicans (and many Democrats) pressed the secretary on those efforts, while others praised them. Cassidy, for his part, expressed concerns about Kennedy's indiscriminate cutting of research programs, but still, he was largely deferential. 'I agree with Secretary Kennedy that HHS needs reform,' Cassidy said. Even if he had disagreed, an angry exchange between a health secretary and a Senate committee doesn't guarantee any policy changes. Lawmakers may try to act like government bureaucrats report to them, but they have limited power once a nominee is already in their job. Technically, lawmakers can impeach Cabinet members, but in American history, a sitting Cabinet member has never been impeached and subsequently removed from office. The long and arduous confirmation process is supposed to be the bulwark against potentially dangerous nominees being put in positions of power. Cassidy and most of his Republican colleagues have already decided not to stop Kennedy from overseeing the largest department in the federal government by budget. Now Kennedy is free to do whatever he wants—senators be damned.
