Keep an eye on this.
The Texas Attorney General’s Office can’t prove that a Houston-area midwife provided an illegal abortion, her lawyers say.
In an appeal submitted to the Texas First Court of Appeals on Monday, lawyers for Maria Rojas suggested that a woman who told state investigators that she received an abortion from Rojas may have actually been treated for a natural miscarriage.
The 54-page appeal seeks to throw out a March 27 injunction issued by a Waller County judge that closed four clinics operated by Rojas in Harris and Waller Counties. Lawyers argued that Texas’ 2021 abortion law doesn’t allow Attorney General Ken Paxton to seek injunctions against clinics, but rather leaves that power to the Texas Medical Board.
The appeal also attacks the legitimacy of the months-long criminal investigation into Rojas and her clinics and argues the attorney general’s office has presented little proof that abortions occurred.
“In the attorney general offices’ rush to find and prosecute someone for violating the state’s total abortion ban, it conducted a shoddy investigation and leapt to wild conclusions,” the attorneys wrote.
See here, here, and here for some background. The Trib adds some details.
Her lawyers now argue the injunction was improper because it didn’t explain why it was necessary or what it prohibited, and it didn’t set a trial date. They assert that there is no evidence that Rojas practiced medicine without a license, as opposed to providing services consistent with a midwife, and question why the chief investigator was not present at the hearing to be questioned.
Rojas is represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, a New York-based nonprofit law firm that has led high-profile lawsuits against state abortion bans, including in Texas.
In the appeal, Rojas’ attorneys raise questions about whether the woman investigators claim underwent an illegal abortion was actually treated for a miscarriage. The appeal asserts that Rojas told the woman her pregnancy would not be successful and gave her a low dose of misoprostol — a treatment regimen appropriate for managing a miscarriage, not inducing an abortion. The lawyers questioned why investigators didn’t fact-check this woman’s story with the data stored on the clinic’s ultrasound machine, which they seized as part of the investigation.
Rojas’ lawyers also questioned whether Paxton has the authority to seek a temporary injunction or bring a lawsuit on behalf of the state in an abortion-related case. Texas’ abortion ban has criminal and civil penalties, but does not explicitly allow the Attorney General to pursue injunctive relief or file suit on behalf of the state, the appeal says.
This story says that Rojas still hasn’t been formally indicted for any crimes, which is wild since she was arrested two months ago, with a whole lot of fanfare and chest-thumping from Ken Paxton. The flip side of that is just how little evidence the AG seems to have, and what he does have doesn’t point to any actual crimes. Maybe there’s more that hasn’t been made public yet, but that sure sounds like the reason why indictments are pursued in the first place. The bottom line, as I’ve said from the beginning, is don’t take Ken Paxton’s word for anything, not until you hear what the defense has to say.
One last note, there’s a motion to move this appeal to the new statewide 15th Court of Appeals, as that court is for lawsuits filed by or against the state. As of the publication of this story, that motion is pending.