Texas midwife arrested and charged with performing illegal abortions
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 Herald Scotland
10 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Nicola Sturgeon's legacy may be defined by Isla Bryson
Nicola Sturgeon has said she was 'like a rabbit caught in the headlights' when asked if double rapist Isla Bryson was a woman. In her new book, the former first minister said she was 'completely blindsided' when the case prompted a public outcry. 'I had no advance warning that the case was pending,' she wrote in Frankly. 'To this day, I do not understand how no one in the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) or Scottish government officialdom thought it important to flag it up to me.' Read more from Unspun: Bryson was convicted at the High Court in Glasgow in 2023 of raping one woman in Clydebank in 2016 and another in Glasgow in 2019. He began identifying as a woman only after being charged and has not legally changed gender. Although the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service expected Bryson to be sent to Barlinnie, the SPS initially moved him to the women's prison at Cornton Vale. It was only after a backlash, and Ms Sturgeon's intervention, that Bryson was transferred to HMP Edinburgh. The row came just weeks after MSPs passed the controversial Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. Although the Bill never became law, the SPS had for years allowed prisoners to self-identify their gender. Which is why nobody flagged it to the first minister. Despite the Bryson scandal, subsequent policy changes, and the Supreme Court case, the SPS continues to house dangerous, biological men in the women's estate. Its post-Bryson 2023 Policy for the Management of Transgender People in Custody states that a transgender woman 'will not be eligible to be considered for admission or transfer to a women's prison' if convicted of serious offences such as murder, assault, robbery, abduction, rape, and sexual harassment. However, the policy includes an exception: the SPS Risk Management Team can approve transfers if there is 'compelling evidence' the prisoner does not present an unacceptable risk. What is unacceptable risk? Research by the Murray Blackburn Mackenzie (MBM) policy collective found that prisoners currently in the women's estate include Alan Baker (also known as Alex Stewart), convicted of murder in 2013 and held in the female unit at Greenock prison. So too is Richard McCabe, also known as Melissa Young, who was convicted of murder in 2014. While on remand at Cornton Vale, they assaulted a female officer, biting her stomach Peter Laing, who now goes by the name Paris Green, was also convicted of murder and torture in 2013. They were still in the female estate in 2024 and recently charged with assaulting a female guard. Do these prisoners represent acceptable risk? The Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) helped draft the new SPS policy. MBM has repeatedly called on the SHRC to withdraw its submission. In June 2023, they were told their request was being considered. Despite chasing in August and October 2023, they received no reply. As reported in The Herald, they wrote again in April 2025, following the Supreme Court case, renewing their call. Almost three months later, SHRC executive director Jan Savage responded. Part of the delay, she said, was due to the prison service. On May 22, 2025, the SHRC wrote to the SPS asking how it was monitoring the impact of its policy, whether it had published data, if the policy would be reviewed, and if it collected information on sex and gender. More than two months on, the SPS has yet to reply. When asked, an SPS spokesperson told me: 'We value the important role of the Scottish Human Rights Commission and will respond to their correspondence in due course. 'We have received the Supreme Court's judgement and are actively considering its impact.' With Frankly, Ms Sturgeon attempts to define her legacy. The truth is, the chaos in Scotland's public sector, and Scotland's prisons in particular, could well define it for her.
The Independent
15 hours ago
- The Independent
Drivers warned over car finance scammers after court ruling
Drivers have been warned to watch out for scammers that are seeking to take advantage of the recent landmark ruling on mass instances of car finance mis-selling in the UK. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has told motorists that it will be consulting on a compensation scheme for those who have been affected by the issue, which it says could cost finance lenders up to £18 billion. A Supreme Court ruling earlier in the month found that lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes. The decision means that many contested claims will not go ahead, but the most serious claims will be eligible for compensation. Many cases in a separate strand of the car finance mis-selling case, which was not part of the Supreme Court ruling, are also set to receive payouts. More details of the FCA-led compensation scheme should arrive in the coming months, with the watchdog confirming that any payments will begin in 2026. A new warning from authority says that anyone who believes they are affected should not share their details with anyone pretending to be linked to a compensation scheme or car finance lender. The FCA says it put out its warning following 'reports of scammers contacting people.' It added: 'These fraudsters are asking individuals for personal information including their name, address, date of birth and bank details. They then falsely claim that these people are owed compensation.' The only action those who have been affected have been advised to take is to complain directly to their provider now. The FCA has shared more information on how to do this. Am I eligible for the car finance compensation scheme? The proposed scheme firstly targets issues arising from Discretionary Commission Arrangements (DCAs), which were outlawed in January 2021 and not involved in the recent Supreme Court case. Individuals who entered into personal contract purchase (PCP) or Hire Purchase (HP) deals before the ban are likely to have been unknowingly subjected to DCAs. However, those with 0 per cent interest rates or very small commissions are unlikely to qualify for compensation under this strand. The newer element of the mis-selling case, relating to the Supreme Court ruling, stems from commissions which the FCA explains were "unfair and therefore unlawful.' Unlike the DCA cases, these require individual assessment, making them harder to define. Factors in the payout may even include how vulnerable a person is, and therefore whether it can be considered more unfair for the commission to have been so high. The FCA estimates that most individuals making claims through the scheme will receive "less than £950 in compensation per agreement". The final cost to the industry will ultimately depend on the final details of the scheme.
The Independent
15 hours ago
- The Independent
Palestine Action terror ban too heavy-handed, former Supreme Court judge warns Starmer
The terror law that saw hundreds arrested for supporting Palestine Action is 'not consistent with basic rights to free speech' and should be changed, a former Supreme court judge has warned. Writing for the Independent, Lord Sumption said the Terror Act's definition of what amounts to support for a proscribed organisation is 'far too wide'. He warned that one of the criteria – wearing, carrying or displaying something that supports the group – goes too far and should be rowed back to avoid the more than 500 people arrested at Saturday's protest against the group's ban under terror laws from being criminalised. Urging the government to amend the Act, he said, 'merely indicating your support for a terrorist organisation without doing anything to assist or further its acts should not be a criminal offence'. He also suggested that many of the more than 500 people arrested over the weekend, nearly half of whom are over the age of 60, should not be prosecuted, saying there was a 'simple solution' for the prosecuting authorities. 'The director of prosecution's consent is required for any prosecution of those who have been arrested. Where a demonstrator acted peacefully, he would be wise not to authorise a prosecution.' But he said that 'in the longer term' the 'right course would be to amend the Terrorism Act so as to redefine in a more sensible way the offence of supporting a proscribed organisation'. Sir Keir Starmer is facing a furious backlash against the arrests and has been warned he is making a mistake of 'poll tax proportions'. Politicians from across the political divide have warned of an excessive use of counterterrorism powers that were riding roughshod over the right to peaceful protest. The Metropolitan Police confirmed on Sunday that 532 arrests were made, 522 for displaying an item in support of a proscribed organisation at the march in central London. Civil liberties groups, including Amnesty and Liberty, said the arrests were 'disproportionate to the point of absurdity' and that the government's terrorism laws were a threat to freedom of expression. Labour peer Shami Chakrabarti told The Independent the 'proscription of Palestine Action is in danger of becoming a mistake of poll tax proportions' – a reference to Margaret Thatcher's unpopular policy that triggered civil disobedience and riots. Home secretary Yvette Cooper has defended the police but suggested those who were arrested may not 'know the full nature of this organisation'. Her comment led to calls for the authorities to be more 'clear-cut' about why they proscribed Palestine Action last month. The group hit the headlines earlier this year when four members were accused of causing around £7m worth of damage to aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. After the arrests, Downing Street defended the move to ban the group, saying it was 'violent', had committed 'significant injury' as well as criminal damage, and that the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre had found the organisation had carried out three separate acts of terrorism. But former Conservative cabinet minister Sir David Davis told The Independent the arrests were an 'excessive use of counterterrorism law', adding 'they've gone over the top'. He said: 'We've not really been given any evidence for the reasoning behind proscribing Palestine Action. I mean, they broke in and painted an aircraft, they did not set bombs or anything. So that's the first question. What was the criteria? And then secondly, should you be arresting lots of people because they support a particular side and put up a banner?' He added: 'The authorities should be more clear cut about why they have proscribed Palestine Action.' Meanwhile, veteran backbencher Diane Abbott said the government is in danger of making itself look 'both draconian and foolish'. And former Labour cabinet minister Peter Hain described the mass arrests as 'madness' and said Palestine Action was not 'equivalent to real terrorist groups like al-Qaeda or Islamic State [which is] why I voted against its ban'.
