Texas midwife accused of providing illegal abortions, running clinics
A Texas midwife was arrested on Monday for allegedly providing illegal abortions and unlawfully operating a network of clinics in the Houston area.
Maria Margarita Rojas, 48, is now facing criminal charges for practicing medicine without a license and illegally performing an abortion, a second-degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
'Texas law protecting life is clear, and we will hold those who violate it accountable,' Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R ) said in a statement.
Under the Texas Human Life Protection Act of 2021, Paxton is also authorized to seek civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation for the unlawful performance of an abortion.
The Lone Star state is one of 12 that has an overarching ban on abortions at all stages of pregnancy. The ban allows for exceptions in the cases of medical emergencies that endanger the mother's life.
Texas law holds abortion providers, not patients, criminally responsible for unlawful procedures, according to Paxton's release.
A similar case was heard by a Louisiana grand jury in January, leading to the indictment of a New York doctor for allegedly sending abortion medication into the state. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill has pushed for the physician to be extradited, a request that New York officials have rejected.
Rojas' case is one of the first to challenge the illegal operation of abortion clinics since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
The end of humanitarian parole and TPS is shaping Michigan communities
Anti-deportation protesters gather in Detroit, waving Mexican flags and signs in both Spanish and English, to show their opposition to border patrol activities in the area on January 26, 2025 | Photo by Erick Diaz Veliz. On Wednesday morning, community members reported Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were making surprise arrests at an immigration check-in office in Grand Rapids where individuals were present for previously scheduled appointments, part of a larger nationwide effort by the Trump administration to restrict those with legal immigration status and deport them. Activist groups, including GR Rapid Response to ICE and Movimiento Cosecha GR, say they quickly mobilized through social media, with members showing up outside the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program office to let new arrivals who were showing up for appointments know about the ICE presence, while others entered the office to warn people waiting inside. 'People who show up for check-ins were being taken anyway. This is what we've come to. We need to do much more to help the affected community. Still, I'm hopeful that over time, the number of people helping will increase,' Ivan Diaz, a former Kent County commissioner and candidate for Michigan senate, said in a text statement. The arrests are just the latest by federal agents in Michigan that continue to spark concern among community members and activist groups of the increasing intensity and sweep of federal actions against the immigrant community. Restricting legal status Since the start of the current administration, the Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, protections for immigrants and humanitarian paroles are in danger of being removed from hundreds of thousands of foreign individuals. Christine Sauve, from the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, told Michigan Advance that it is uncertain how many members of the community across Michigan currently live under either TPS or humanitarian parole. 'There are currently 31,500 cases pending in Detroit's immigration court, and the majority of those cases involve individuals with parole. These individuals deserve to have their case heard and their day in court, especially if they fear persecution in their country of origin,' Sauve said. On Monday, May 19, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way, at least for now, for the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for 350,000 Venezuelans who arrived in the United States in 2023. That followed a February decision by the federal government to cut similar extensions for just over half a million Haitians, leaving them vulnerable to losing their jobs and facing deportation after August. Additionally, by the end of May, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a court order that had protected almost 500,000 Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelans immigrants with temporary legal status through what is referred to as the CHNV program, from losing their humanitarian parole protections, exposing them to possible deportation. In an X post, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson wrote that the decisions by the federal government are within their legal authority to revoke the temporary status granted to hundreds of thousands during the Biden Administration. 'Biden's program violated black letter immigration law, incentivized additional illegal immigration,' Jackson wrote. Sauve did not appear hopeful about the issue being resolved in a timely manner for those facing deportation. 'During this time, current CHNV parolees will not have a legal immigration status. Individuals utilized these legal immigration pathways in good faith, and overnight they have been rendered undocumented, unable to work, and subject to deportation.' Sauve said. Temporary Protected Status and humanitarian parole are two distinct immigration protection mechanisms. TPS allows qualified nationals already present in the U.S to live and work legally for a specific period, while humanitarian parole, granted on a case-by-case basis, allows certain individuals to enter or remain in the country temporarily. They are given to individuals from countries affected by armed conflict, natural disasters, or who might face persecution. 'Many individuals with parole status have fled dangerous situations in their country of origin and have pending applications for asylum or other immigration benefits that they may be eligible for,' Sauve highlighted. 'They have built lives and become part of our Michigan communities. They are our neighbors and co-workers.' Economic consequences Another aspect of the mass deportations promised by the federal government is the impact to Michigan's agricultural economy in which a considerable portion of the working population is undocumented. In March, days after half a million Haitians found their TPS extension cut, a Michigan food corporation declared their operation would be significantly affected by losing such a large number of employees. Clemens Food Group in Coldwater employs around 400 Haitian TPS holders as its workforce. According to a report by the American Immigration Council, based on 2022 data and published in 2024, TPS holders have contributed positively to Michigan industries and paid a significant amount of taxes in the U.S. 'Forcing them to leave the country not only risks putting these individuals in danger, but also threatens to significantly disrupt local economies,' the report stated. The council says TPS holders across the state make significant contributions to both public coffers and the private economy, including earning $57.9 million in household income, which translates into $5.2 million in state and local taxes paid, $6.7 million in federal taxes paid. 'The end of TPS and parole designations is devastating for our clients and their families, but also for their families, workplaces, and communities across Michigan,' Sauve said. 'These programs are lifelines for vulnerable individuals and should not be cruelly ended prematurely, while immigration cases are still pending or conditions are still not safe for individuals to return.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
He was 20 when he was sentenced to death. Now he hopes US Supreme Court will hear his case
A man on Mississippi's death row is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take a look at his case while he continues seeking other federal relief. Terry Pitchford, 39, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in 2006 for the death of a man in a Grenada County grocery store during an armed robbery in 2004. In 2023, Terry Pitchford's conviction and death sentence were set aside and a new trial was ordered by a federal district court judge. The state appealed and the conviction and sentence were reinstated after a ruling in favor of the state by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mississippi: Man whose death sentence was overturned in 2023 is now facing death again. Here's why Now Pitchford is hoping the nation's highest court will review his case while he also continues to work on other aspects of the case in the Mississippi Northern District of U.S. District Court. The state has until July 3 to file a brief opposing Pitchford's petition. The Supreme Court may consider Pitchford's petition at the opening conference of the October term. Pitchford is asking the Supreme Court to review his Batson claim, which refers to jury selection in which race, ethnicity or gender played a role in excluding potential jurors. During jury selection at Pitchford's trial, then-District Attorney Doug Evans "used four of his allotted 12 peremptory strikes to remove four of the five Black venirepersons provisionally seated in the jury's empaneling," court records show. Evans was accused of doing the same during the prosecution of Curtis Flowers, who stood trial six times for the murders of four people at a furniture store in Winona. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 overturned Flowers' conviction for the last time, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh "citing a 'relentless, determined effort to rid the jury of Black individuals,'" according to an earlier story. In Pitchford's case, during his appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court said Pitchford should have raised objections at his initial trial if he wanted to contest the jury selection. The court's decision in favor of the state was not unanimous. Two justices disagreed with the ruling, saying "the record showed that D.A. Evans used peremptory strikes in an intentionally racially discriminatory manner," according to court documents. The federal court agreed with the dissenters and set aside Pitchford's conviction and ordered a new trial. The federal appellate court looked at the case and determined the Mississippi Supreme Court did not err when it considered the Batson claim and reinstated Pitchford's conviction and sentence. Now it will be up to the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in, if it decides to review the case. Lici Beveridge is a reporter for the Hattiesburg American and Clarion Ledger. Contact her at lbeveridge@ Follow her on X @licibev or Facebook at This article originally appeared on Mississippi Clarion Ledger: Mississippi death row inmate asks SCOTUS for help
Boston Globe
19 hours ago
- Boston Globe
A judge tells federal agencies they can't enforce anti-trans bias policies against Catholic groups
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The judge rejected a request from an order of nuns, two Catholic homes and the Catholic Benefits Association, which represents employers, to impose similar bans on each agency covering abortion and fertility treatments Catholic organizations consider immoral. He said those claims were 'underdeveloped' and not ready for court review. Advertisement But he concluded that allowing the two agencies to enforce policies on gender-affirming care or health coverage for it would restrict employers' and health care providers' ability to live out their religious beliefs, violating a 1992 federal law meant to provide broad protections for religious freedoms. The HHS rule had a provision allowing the agency to make case-by-case exceptions based on religious beliefs, but Welte said that would be insufficient. Advertisement 'The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,' wrote Welte, who is based in Fargo. The two agencies did not immediately respond to email messages seeking comment Thursday. The Catholic Benefits Association serves more than 9,000 employers and about 164,000 employees enrolled in member health plans, according to its website. The group, founded in 2013, says it 'advocates for and litigates in defense of our members' First Amendment rights to provide employee benefits and a work environment that is consistent with the Catholic faith.' The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedoms. Association General Counsel Martin Nussbaum welcomed the ruling, saying the organization's members 'want to do the right thing in their health plan and in their medical services that they provide for those medical providers, and this gives them protection to doing that.' And he said the judge's ruling suggests there are no mandates from the federal government on abortion or fertility treatments, so there is 'no need to provide protection.' The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act's protections against discrimination based on sex also cover anti-LGBTQ+ bias in employment. The landmark 1964 act doesn't have specific provisions dealing with bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But courts also have intervened to limit how far the federal government can go in combating anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination when religious organizations or employers with religious beliefs against LGBTQ+ rights are involved. Both the HHS rule and the EEOC's policy on sex discrimination have their roots in efforts by President Barack Obama to protect LGBTQ+ rights in 2016, in his last year in office. Advertisement When President Donald Trump began his second term in January, he issued an order saying the federal government would not recognize transgender people's gender identities. In April, two employees said the EEOC was classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, essentially putting them on indefinite hold. The 2024 HHS rule also covered bias based on 'pregnancy or related conditions," and the Catholic health care providers argued that they might face losing federal funds if they refused to perform abortions, in line with Catholic opposition to abortion. But HHS said the rule wouldn't have forced them to perform abortions or provide health coverage for abortions — only that it couldn't refuse to care for someone because they'd had one, according to Welte. Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas.
