Texas moves to enforce judgment against New York doctor over abortion pills
Paxton's office filed a petition in New York state court claiming that Acting Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck has a legal obligation to enforce a Texas judge's ruling that New Paltz, New York-based doctor Margaret Carpenter violated the state's abortion ban.
Bruck has twice rejected requests by Texas to enforce the judgment, saying that New York's so-called shield law precludes the enforcement of other states' abortion bans against New Yorkers.
The case could set statewide precedent in New York and could embolden Paxton and other Republican attorneys general to prosecute other out-of-state doctors who prescribe abortion drugs.
Medication abortion accounts for more than half of U.S. abortions and has drawn increased scrutiny from Republicans and anti-abortion groups since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision allowing states to ban abortion.
Bruck in a statement stood by his decision to uphold New York's shield law, which he said protects "fundamental rights under New York law."
'As Acting Ulster County Clerk, I take my responsibilities and the oath I swore with the utmost seriousness," said Bruck, who is running for Ulster County clerk as a Democrat.
Paxton in a statement called Carpenter "a radical abortionist who must face justice."
"No matter where they reside, pro-abortion extremists who send drugs designed to kill the unborn into Texas will face the full force of our state's pro-life laws," he said.
The Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, a group co-founded by Carpenter, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A judge in Collin County, Texas, entered a default judgment against Carpenter in February after she failed to respond to the state's civil lawsuit alleging she illegally prescribed mifepristone and misoprostol, the two drugs used in medication abortion, to a Texas woman via telemedicine.
Carpenter has separately been indicted by a Louisiana grand jury for prescribing an abortion pill that was taken by a teenager there, in what appeared to be the first time a state criminally charged a doctor in another state for prescribing abortion drugs.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, in February rejected Louisiana's request to extradite Carpenter to the state.
Read more:
New York official again rebuffs Texas judgment against doctor over abortion pills
NY official rejects Texas judgment against doctor in abortion pill case
Missouri accuses Planned Parenthood of downplaying abortion drug risks
U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ends constitutional right to abortion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
8 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump says Epstein ‘stole' Virginia Giuffre from Mar-a-Lago staff role
Donald Trump suggested on Tuesday that Jeffrey Epstein, the late sex offender he socialized with for more than a decade, 'stole' Virginia Giuffre and other young female staffers whom he hired away from the president's Mar-a-Lago country club. Speaking to reporters onboard Air Force One as he returned to Washington from Scotland, Trump was asked to elaborate on his earlier comments about falling out with Epstein because he took employees from his business. The president said on Monday that he had kicked Epstein out of his club 'because he did something that was inappropriate' – specifically, that 'he stole people that worked for me'. Senior White House aides have repeatedly suggested in recent weeks that Trump broke with Epstein in about 2004 and expelled him from the Mar-a-Lago club for inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature. In a statement last week, spokesperson Steven Cheung said Trump 'kicked him out of his club for being a creep'. The president's account of the break being motivated by pique at having his employees poached by his friend cast the break in a different light. On Tuesday, a reporter asked Trump: 'The workers that were taken from you – were some of them young women?' Trump replied: 'The answer is yes, they were. People that worked in the spa.' Another reporter then asked if Trump one of the people he was referring to was Giuffre, one of Epstein's most prominent accusers who said in a sworn complaint that she was hired away from the Mar-a-Lago spa by Epstein's accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell in 2000, when she was 16. Giuffre, who died this year, alleged in her complaint that she was first abused by Epstein and Maxwell together, and then 'lent out to other powerful men', including Prince Andrew. 'I think she worked at the spa,' Trump replied. 'I think so. I think that was one of the people, yeah. He stole her. And by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know. None whatsoever.' The president and his administration are working desperately to change the subject away from Epstein – an issue that has lately roiled his base. But his latest claim that one of those employees was the 16-year-old Giuffre also complicates the timeline. Giuffre was hired away from Mar-a-Lago in 2000, but two years later, Trump spoke highly of Epstein to a reporter. 'I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,' Trump told New York magazine in late 2002. 'He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.' Sarah Blaskey, a Miami Herald investigative reporter, also pointed out in her 2020 book on Mar-a-Lago that Epstein remained on the membership rolls of Mar-a-Lago until October 2007, more than a year after he was first arrested and charged with soliciting prostitution from a minor. Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for conspiring with Epstein to sexually traffic minors, has offered to testify before Congress but has asked lawmakers to give her immunity, along with other major conditions, according to a list of demands sent to the House oversight committee by her attorneys, seen by CNN. Lauren Gambino contributed reporting
Daily Mail
18 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE New mom details shocking cost of giving birth in America
A new mom has shared the shockingly high cost of giving birth in America - and it's well over six figures. Emily Fisher, 36, from Columbus, Ohio, welcomed twin girls last month and was left stunned when she saw an insurance claim come through for her delivery that was over $10,000. Completely shocked by the immense figure, she decided to go back and total up all the bills she had received over the course of her pregnancy to determine just how much having a baby in the US really costs. And after adding everything up, Emily found that having her baby girls would have cost her a whopping $120,527.51 had she not had insurance. She shared her findings in a video shared to TikTok earlier this month and it quickly went viral, leaving thousands across the globe just as surprised as she was. 'So I am five weeks postpartum with twin girls and I've been seeing a lot of headlines recently about how the birth rate in America is declining and how concerning that is,' Emily began in the video. 'I thought to myself, I could think of a lot of reasons why the birth rate might be declining. First and foremost, cost. 'So I decided to take it upon myself and look at every bill that I received over the course of my pregnancy and total what it costs to deliver twins in America.' Emily explained that she is considered 'advanced maternal age' and was pregnant with 'dichorionic diamniotic twins' which made her pregnancy 'high risk.' In addition, about halfway through the pregnancy her doctor raised concerns about potential 'fetal growth restriction,' so from about 22 weeks on she had to have two appointments every week with her OBGYN and a maternal fetal medicine specialist to make sure the babies were healthy. 'So what was the total cost of that? From the start of my pregnancy through delivery and me walking out of those hospital doors, the total bill for my care was $120,527.51,' she said in the video. 'Now I am very fortunate great insurance and I have a low deductible so over the course of my pregnancy out of pocket I paid $2,038.70. 'I know that is relatively good but still, $2,000 for something that is considered necessary and vital to the future of America is pretty significant.' Emily added that on top of that, her newborns both received bills for their delivery. 'It's kind of funny, they're not even able to blink yet and they've already been billed more than the total cost of my student loans,' she continued. 'Baby A received a bill for $15,124.55 and Baby B was billed $14,875.55, I guess there was some sort of sibling discount. She added, 'The total cost I owed for those two bills was $750, which was the cost of my deductible.' The bills are seen above 'The total cost I owed for those two bills was $750, which was the cost of my deductible.' She then broke down what some of the highest costs were during the pregnancy. Unsurprisingly, the delivery itself and the hospital stay afterwards was the most costly expense. Emily explained that she had a scheduled C-section at 37 weeks and spent four days in the hospital post delivery, and the total cost of her care before insurance was $65,665.50. The second highest cost during the pregnancy was an appointment she had about seven months in, during which she complained to her doctor that she was having headaches. She said they took her blood pressure and it was slightly elevated, so they monitored the heart rate of the babies for 20 minutes to 'make sure they were okay.' She was then given 'two extra strength Tylenol' and they 'did some blood work.' 'The cost that was billed to my insurance for that visit was $9,115,' shared the new mom. 'All things considered, I'm very grateful for the experience that I had and very grateful to have great insurance, but I know that for a lot of people who live in America that is simply not possible,' she concluded. 'And if I did not have insurance delivery my two baby girls, I would not be able to afford it. 'In fact, I probably would have had to file bankruptcy had I not had insurance. So when people act confused why the birth rates are down, maybe it's not necessarily all attributed to lifestyle choices, maybe it's not because people aren't feeling the vibe of having kids, maybe it's because the cost of having a baby in America is over six figures.' While chatting with the Daily Mail about it, Emily, who used to work on the healthcare space, said she believes the insurance system in America 'needs a complete overhaul.' 'Given that the US is the one of (if not the only) developed nation in the world without some sort of universal healthcare, we're falling behind,' she said. 'People are spending too much on basic and necessary care. Medical debt is one of the number one reasons for bankruptcy in the US, and it shouldn't be that way. 'If we invested in a system that put the health its people first, everyone would be better off. 'And given the decline in birth rates, if our politicians are genuinely concerned about falling birth rates, they would be incentivizing people to have children. You shouldn't have to pay to give birth.' She added that while she was 'shocked' by the high number that her insurance was billed, she was 'not surprised at the same time.' 'The first thing that came to mind when I saw the total was, "How do people without insurance afford this?"' she shared. 'But I've always known that healthcare in America is a business. Ultimately, like most necessities in the US, privatized insurance is designed to make money.' She said she certainly wasn't expecting her video, which was viewed more than one million times, to get as much attention as it did, but she's so glad that it has sparked a conversation. 'I hope my video makes people think twice about having kids in America. Because until the system is redesigned to truly support the people, we shouldn't be buying into it,' she concluded. 'I'm fortunate to have good health coverage. I'm not on the hook for much as far as the cost of my pregnancy, but that is only the beginning for my family and what we'll pay to raise my kids. 'Now we have to think about things like paying for their health coverage, daycare, food, housing and college. 'All of these things are only getting more and more expensive and almost unreachable for people.'
The Independent
18 hours ago
- The Independent
Higher US tariffs part of the price Europe was willing to pay for its security and arms for Ukraine
France's prime minister described it as a 'dark day' for the European Union, a 'submission' to U.S. tariff demands. Commentators said EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen's handshake with President Donald Trump amounted to capitulation. The trouble is, Europe depends mightily on the United States, and not just for trade. Mirroring Trump, Von der Leyen gushed that the arrangement she endorsed over the weekend to set U.S. tariff levels on most European exports to 15%, which is 10% higher than currently, was 'huge.' Her staff texted reporters insisting that the pact, which starts to enter force on Friday, is the 'biggest trade deal ever.' A month after NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte ingratiated himself with Trump by referring to him as 'daddy,' the Europeans had again conceded that swallowing the costs and praising an unpredictable president is more palatable than losing America. 'It's not only about the trade. It's about security. It's about Ukraine. It's about current geopolitical volatility. I cannot go into all the details,' EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič told reporters Monday. 'I can assure you it was not only about the trade,' he insisted, a day after 'the deal' was sealed in an hour-long meeting once Trump finished playing a round of golf with his son at the course he owns in Scotland. The state of Europe's security dependency Indeed, Europe depends on the U.S. for its security and that security is anything but a game, especially since Russia invaded Ukraine. U.S. allies are convinced that, should he win, President Vladimir Putin is likely to take aim at one of them next. So high are these fears that European countries are buying U.S. weapons to help Ukraine to defend itself. Some are prepared to send their own air defense systems and replace them with U.S. equipment, once it can be delivered. 'We're going to be sending now military equipment and other equipment to NATO, and they'll be doing what they want, but I guess it's for the most part working with Ukraine,' Trump said Sunday, sounding ambivalent about America's role in the alliance. The Europeans also are wary about a U.S. troop drawdown, which the Pentagon is expected to announce by October. Around 84,000 U.S. personnel are based in Europe, and they guarantee NATO's deterrent effect against an adversary like Russia. At the same time, Trump is slapping duties on America's own NATO partners, ostensibly due to concerns about U.S. security interests, using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, a logic that seems absurd from across the Atlantic. Weaning Europe off foreign suppliers 'The EU is in a difficult situation because we're very dependent on the U.S. for security,' said Niclas Poitiers at the Bruegel research institution in Brussels. 'Ukraine is a very big part of that, but also generally our defense is underwritten by NATO.' 'I think there was not a big willingness to pick a major fight, which is the one (the EU) might have needed with the U.S.' to better position itself on trade, Poitiers told The Associated Press about key reasons for von der Leyen to accept the tariff demands. Part of the agreement involves a commitment to buy American oil and gas. Over the course of the Russia-Ukraine war, now in its fourth year, most of the EU has slashed its dependence on unreliable energy supplies from Russia, but Hungary and Slovakia still have not. 'Purchases of U.S. energy products will diversify our sources of supply and contribute to Europe's energy security. We will replace Russian gas and oil with significant purchases of U.S. LNG, oil and nuclear fuels,' von der Leyen said in Scotland on Sunday. In essence, as Europe slowly weans itself off Russian energy it is also struggling to end its reliance on the United States for its security. The Trump administration has warned its priorities now lie elsewhere, in Asia, the Middle East and on its own borders. That was why European allies agreed at NATO's summit last month to spend hundreds of billions of dollars more on defense over the next decade. Primarily for their own security, but also to keep America among their ranks. The diplomacy involved was not always elegant. 'Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win,' Rutte wrote in a private text message to Trump, which the U.S. leader promptly posted on social media. Rutte brushed off questions about potential embarrassment or concern that Trump had aired it, saying: 'I have absolutely no trouble or problem with that because there's nothing in it which had to stay secret.' A price Europe feels it must pay Von der Leyen did not appear obsequious in her meeting with Trump. She often stared at the floor or smiled politely. She did not rebut Trump when he said that only America is sending aid to Gaza. The EU is world's biggest supplier of aid to the Palestinians. With Trump's threat of 30% tariffs hanging over European exports — whether real or brinksmanship is hard to say — and facing the prospect of a full-blown trade dispute while Europe's biggest war in decades rages, 15% may have been a cheap price to pay. 'In terms of the economic impact on the EU economy itself, it will be negative,' Poitiers said. 'But it's not something that is on a comparable magnitude like the energy crisis after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or even COVID.' 'This is a negative shock for our economy, but it is something that's very manageable,' he said. It remains an open question as to how long this entente will last. ___
