The ‘Highly Unusual' Case Of The Midwife Arrested For Violating Texas' Abortion Law
Maria Rojas, a Houston-area midwife, was arrested in March for allegedly violating Texas' near-total abortion ban. She was held for 10 days in the samejail where Sandra Bland died after a routine traffic stop in 2015. Rojas was able to post the exorbitant $1.4 million bail, but her phone was seized and her license was stripped — and with it her ability to make an income. She was court-ordered to wear a tracking device.
'In Texas, life is sacred. I will always do everything in my power to protect the unborn,' Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a leading anti-abortion advocate who recently announced his bid for a U.S. Senate seat, proudly boasted about the arrest.
But three months later, Rojas has not been formally charged with a crime — putting her in an excruciating limbo where she's unable to make money, but forced to pay for a costly legal defense with little public evidence against her.
It's standard practice for a criminal complaint to be filed shortly after someone is arrested. But in an unusual move, Rojas was held on an arrest warrant. Without a formal indictment or any criminal discovery from the state, Rojas can't begin preparing her defense.
'Mrs. Rojas remains unindicted for any crime. Meanwhile, she remains under exceedingly restrictive bond conditions, and she is prohibited from doing the lawful work as a midwife she was doing before these specious allegations against her were made,' Nicole Hochglaube, Rojas' defense attorney, told HuffPost.
Reproductive rights are under attack. HuffPost is committed to reporting the truth, amplifying voices, and covering this fight with depth and care. Support our work by today.
It's 'really unusual' to be arrested but not indicted, C. Melissa Owen, first vice president at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told HuffPost.
'It was highly unusual 10 days after she had been arrested, and it is exceptionally unusual now,' said Owen, who is also the co-chair of the NACDL's task force on policing and overcriminalization of pregnancy.
The Texas Office of the Attorney General did not respond to HuffPost's request for comment. Attorneys representing Paxton's office also did not respond to a request for comment.
This has not only been a difficult time for Rojas and her family, but also the primarily Spanish-speaking, low-income community Rojas once served, Hochglaube said. The midwife owned and operated several health clinics in the Houston area, all of which have been temporarily closed by a court order in a civil case brought by Paxton's office.
'We look forward to clearing her of these allegations but remain in a damaging holding pattern waiting for any specifics about these claims from the State of Texas,' Hochglaube said.
Without an indictment, Rojas is left in a sort of no man's land where due process has been put on hold. 'There is no possibility of due process for her in this current state,' Owen said. 'Rights only become meaningful through due process. You can't do anything about an arrest unless you can challenge it.'
The 30-page arrest affidavit filed by Paxton's office is currently the only evidence from the state outlining Rojas' alleged crimes. The investigation into Rojas' clinics began with an anonymous complaint to Texas Health and Human Services in January. The attorney general's office investigated and arrested Rojas and another worker on charges of practicing medicine without a license. Weeks later, they were arrested again on charges of performing an illegal abortion.
State investigators surveilled the clinics for a little over a month earlier this year after the anonymous complaint alleged that two women received illegal abortions from Rojas in September 2023 and January 2025. One of the two women later confirmed to investigators that she received an abortion from Rojas, according to the arrest warrant. A third woman told investigators that Rojas presented herself as a gynecologist and may have provided a medication abortion to the woman after Rojas said she would not be able to carry the pregnancy to term.
The arrest affidavit stated that investigators seized a bottle of misoprostol and $2,900 in cash from Rojas' car. The main investigator wrote that he knew, 'based on training and experience, that misoprostol is an abortifacient commonly used to induce medical abortions.'
Last month, Rojas was able to tell her side of the story in an appeal brief in the civil suit. Her attorneys painted a very different picture, accusing Paxton's office of conjecture and a politically motivated investigation that proves nothing.
'The Attorney General boasts that he has caught a 'Houston-Area Abortionist' and has shut down 'Clinics Providing Illegal Abortions.' But there's a snag: it isn't true,' Rojas' attorneys wrote in the brief. 'In the Attorney General Office's rush to find and prosecute someone for violating the State's total abortion ban, it conducted a shoddy investigation and leapt to wild conclusions.'
Witness statements in the arrest warrant 'do not show that an abortion was knowingly provided or attempted,' Rojas' attorneys wrote in the civil appeal. They argue that investigators' main witness — the third woman who alleges Rojas may have provided a medication abortion — was given one misoprostol tablet, which is one-fourth of the dose needed for a full medication abortion. Rojas likely believed the woman was experiencing a miscarriage and gave her misoprostol, the standard protocol for miscarriage care.
The main investigator, who is a Medicaid fraud investigator, seized a small number of misoprostol pills from Rojas' car, but didn't note that misoprostol is commonly used for other medical issues, most notably during labor and delivery of a baby. The affidavit states several times that Rojas had $2,900 in cash and the clinics accepted cash payment. The investigator noted that he knows 'cash-based and digital peer-to-peer transactions are frequently used in unlicensed medical operations to avoid financial scrutiny and regulatory oversight,' but he did not note that people who are uninsured or have immigration concerns are more likely to use cash.
Marc Hearron, the lead lawyer on Rojas' civil case and an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights, said he's stunned by what's happening to Rojas.
'If the state can do this shoddy investigation, get an arrest warrant and throw you in jail, just by saying the word 'abortion,' without even actually having the evidence to back it up — any health care provider is at risk in the state of Texas,' he told HuffPost.
Owen, from NACDL, speculated that there are likely two main reasons for the state's delay in indicting Rojas. The first is that the evidence Paxton's office has gathered wouldn't survive the test of probable cause. The second is that they do have probable cause but there is something suspect about the evidence they've gathered or how they obtained it.
The lack of formal criminal charges isn't the only exceptional thing about this case. It's also unusual that Paxton's office is directly responsible for investigating Rojas. The attorney general's office in Texas doesn't have the power to prosecute someone on criminal charges; the office needs to be invited by a local district attorney. Rojas was arrested in Waller County, where Sean Whittmore, the local district attorney, is a former employee of Paxton's.
Rafa Kidvai, an attorney with the Repro Legal Defense Fund, pointed to Paxton's involvement in the case, a general lack of evidence against Rojas and the bail amount as reasons that they believe this is a political prosecution.
Abortion criminalization cases often do set higher bail amounts, said Kidvai, because abortion is a politically charged issue. For example, women who miscarry into a toilet and flush fetal remains have been charged with abuse of a corpse. But even within that context, Rojas' bail amount for allegedly performing an illegal abortion, a second-degree felony in Texas, was 'inordinately high,' Kidvai said.
The average bail amount for a second-degree felony in Waller County is around $36,000, according to 2024 public records. Rojas' bail was set at $1.4 million.
'This sort of cruelty by procedure that happens is exactly what we need to be talking about,' Kidvai said. 'If you lose all your financial support or your income, how do you fight the case? Attorneys cost money, going to court costs money, childcare costs money, therapy costs money. Criminal cases are inordinately expensive for people to take on themselves.'
Kidvai has worked on many pregnancy and abortion criminalization cases including several in Texas. When someone is accused of these types of crimes, often because of pregnancy loss, their community turns on them. They lose employment, they're at risk of losing custody of their children, and sometimes there are immigration consequences.
Rojas spent 10 days in jail before she paid her $1.4 million bail. She was able to pay the bond with the help of bail funds, organizations that provide financial assistance so people can be released from jail before trial.
The $1.4 million bail amount signals 'that they want to punish somebody and never actually give this person the opportunity to defend themselves,' Owen said.
'Absent that bail fund, she would be serving a sentence and having no chance to test whether or not there is even a crime here.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
14 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump's Patience With Putin Leaves Senate Sanctions Push on Hold
President Donald Trump's suggestion that he may let Russia and Ukraine keep fighting has left US lawmakers in an awkward spot over their plan to force a ceasefire with 'bone-crushing' sanctions against Moscow. The Senate bill has more than 80 co-sponsors, an all-but-unheard-of level of bipartisan support. Yet although that kind of veto-proof backing is enough for the Senate to press ahead without White House backing, supporters show no sign they're ready to challenge the president.
an hour ago
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools , churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey , alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision . Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
