Texas midwife arrested and charged with performing illegal abortions
A midwife in Texas has been arrested and charged with performing illegal abortions and practicing medicine without the appropriate license.
Ken Paxton, the state attorney general, announced the arrest on Monday, which he said had happened earlier this month, following an investigation by his office.
According to Paxton, the midwife, Maria Margarita Rojas, age 49, allegedly owned and operated three health clinics in the northwest area of Houston. In a news release, Paxton accused Rojas of performing abortions in the clinics — which are banned by law in Texas — and of employing people who falsely presented themselves as licensed medical professionals.
The case appears to be the first in which a healthcare provider in Texas has been criminally charged with performing an abortion since the state's ban went into effect in 2022.
The abortion charge is considered a second-degree felony, with a sentence of up to 20 years in prison and fine of up to $10,000. The charge related to medical licensing is a third-degree felony.
The clinics did not provide comment when reached by phone, and Rojas did not immediately respond to NBC News' inquiries. Court documents reviewed by NBC News did not list a lawyer for her.
The documents show that a district judge in Waller County, Texas, first granted a warrant for Rojas' arrest on March 5, alleging criminal conspiracy to commit practicing medicine. She was booked at Waller County Jail the following day, per the documents, and charged March 7 with violating Texas Occupations Code. She was later released on a $10,000 bond.
On Monday, Rojas was arrested again, this time on charges of performing an abortion and violating the state's occupation code, the documents show. Those alleged crimes happened after Rojas' first arrest, according to the documents.
Waller County District Attorney Sean Whittmore referred the case to the attorney general's office, the release said. Whittmore's office told NBC News that it anticipates that the attorney general will handle the prosecution.
The Texas law that made it illegal to provide an abortion took effect shortly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The policy permits exceptions if a physician determines that terminating a pregnancy could save a pregnant person's life or prevent substantial impairment of a major bodily function.
Paxton has pledged to enforce the ban, which targets providers, not patients.
'In Texas, life is sacred. I will always do everything in my power to protect the unborn, defend our state's pro-life laws, and work to ensure that unlicensed individuals endangering the lives of women by performing illegal abortions are fully prosecuted,' he said in a statement on Monday. 'Texas law protecting life is clear, and we will hold those who violate it accountable.'
In December, Paxton sued a New York doctor, alleging that she had prescribed abortion pills to a patient in Dallas. The same doctor was indicted in January by a Louisiana grand jury for prescribing abortion pills — the first known instance of criminal charges filed against a provider for sending the pills across state lines. That doctor did not respond to NBC News' requests for comment at the time and has not spoken about the case.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
5 hours ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court to hear Alabama appeal in push to execute intellectually disabled man
The Supreme Court will hear an appeal from Alabama 's Attorney General's Office in its push to execute an intellectually disabled man, according to an order released early on Friday. Joseph Clifton Smith, now 54, was sentenced to death for a decades-old murder — a decision that continues to be challenged in court. In 1997, Smith beat Durk Van Dam to death with a hammer and a saw in Mobile County to steal his boots, tools and $140, Reuters reported. Van Dam's body was found in his truck in an isolated wooded area. Lower federal courts found Smith is intellectually disabled and can't be executed. People who are intellectually disabled are protected from the death penalty following a Supreme Court ruling from 2002. But this fall, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about what to do in cases when IQ scores are slightly above the widely accepted 70-point marker to determine if someone is intellectually disabled. When a federal appeals court ruled in May 2023 that Smith could not be executed due to his intellectual disability, it detailed how he struggled in school from an early age. Since first grade, Smith struggled in school, and when he underwent an intellectual evaluation he received an IQ score of 75, CNN reported at the time, citing the appeals court. In fourth grade, Smith was placed in a learning-disability class. 'After that placement, Smith developed an unpredictable temper and often fought with classmates. His behavior became so troublesome that his school placed him in an 'emotionally conflicted classroom,'' the appeals court wrote in its ruling. Smith dropped out of school after failing seventh and eighth grade and then spent 'much of the next 15 years in prison' for crimes of burglary and receiving stolen property, according to the ruling. The appeals court said Smith confessed to killing Van Dam and that he 'offered two conflicting versions of the crime.' Smith first said he watched Van Dam be killed, and then he said he took part in his murder but didn't mean to kill him, according to the appeals court. The Alabama Attorney General's office decried the appeals court's ruling, saying at the time, according to CNN, 'Smith's IQ scores have consistently placed his IQ above that of someone who is intellectually disabled. The Attorney General thinks his death sentence was both just and constitutional.' The Supreme Court will now consider making it harder for convicted murderers to show their lives should be spared because they are intellectually disabled.
Daily Mail
8 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Trans people have been lied to on legal rights, says equalities chief
Transgender people must accept a 'period of correction' over their rights after the Supreme Court ruling on gender because they have been 'lied to' about their legal status for years, an equalities chief says. Akua Reindorf, who is drafting guidance on how to treat trans people following April's ruling on the definition of a woman, added that the blame lay with their lobbyists. Ms Reindorf, a barrister and one of eight commissioners on the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), made her remarks in a personal capacity during a debate hosted by the London School of Economics. She said: 'Unfortunately, young people and trans people have been lied to over many years about what their rights are.' The EHRC has been given the task of developing new guidelines on transgender people for public buildings such as cafes, schools and hospitals, after the Supreme Court ruled transgender women are not legally women. Shortly after the ruling the EHRC released interim guidance advising: 'Trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities.' Ms Reindorf's words came as the NHS Confederation, which represents hospital trusts, scrapped its old guidance allowing transgender patients to use the toilets of the sex they identify with. A spokesman for the NHS Confederation said their old guidance is now 'dated' and requires updating to align with the Supreme Court ruling. The two developments will be seen as a major blow to transgender activists, who have been petitioning for public organisations such as the NHS to ignore the court's decision. The Girl Guides and Refuge, the largest domestic abuse charity for women, have both said they have no intention in changing their policy on allowing trans women to use their female facilities. Ms Reindorf described their approach as ridiculous, arguing it amounted to a 'huge farce'. She said transgender people 'have been lied to and there has to be a period of correction'. She added: 'The fact is that, until now, trans people without Gender Recognition Certificates, were being grievously misled about their legal rights. 'The correction of self-ID policies and practices will inevitably feel like a loss of rights for trans people. 'This unfortunate position is overwhelmingly a product of the misinformation which was systematically disseminated over a long period by lobby groups and activists.'
The Independent
8 hours ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court will hear Alabama appeal in bid to execute man found to be intellectually disabled
The Supreme Court will consider making it harder for convicted murderers to show their lives should be spared because they are intellectually disabled, according an order released early on Friday after an apparent technological glitch. The justices' action comes in an appeal from Alabama, which is seeking to execute Joseph Clifton Smith. He was sentenced to death for killing a man in 1997. Lower federal courts found Smith is intellectually disabled and thus can't be executed. When it's argued in the fall, the case could be the first in which the Supreme Court cuts back on its 23-year-old landmark ruling that barred the death penalty for people who are intellectually disabled. At issue is what happens in borderline cases, when scores on IQ tests are slightly above 70, which is widely accepted as a marker of intellectual disability. In 2014 and 2017, the court somewhat eased the burden of showing intellectual disability in those cases. It's the second time in about a year that an online error resulted in an early release from the high court. An opinion in an abortion case was accidently posted on its website a day early in June 2024. The court's landmark opinion overturning abortion as a constitutional right also went out early, though those circumstances were different because the case was leaked. This time, the court released a set of orders set for Monday after an 'apparent software malfunction' sent out early notifications.
