1). “JD Vance is a Bad Father: The empty masculinity of Trump’s men”, Mar 09, 2025, Jessica Valenti, Abortion, Every Day, at < https://jessica.substack.com/
2). “WATCH: Vice President JD Vance confronts Cincinnati protesters, condemns them on social media”, Posted 4:26 PM, Mar 08, 2025 and last updated 10:03 AM, Mar 09, 2025, Molly Schramm & Alex Null, WCPO, ABC Cincinnati, includes 2 embedded videos 2:43 & 2:15 duration, at < https://www.wcpo.com/jd-vance-
3). “Trump's FDA Pick Drops Critical Hint On Abortion Pills”, Mar 07, 2025, Jessica Valenti, Abortion, Every Day, at < https://jessica.substack.com/
4). “Georgia Won’t Say Who’s Now Serving on Its Maternal Mortality Committee After Dismissing All Members Last Year: Before ProPublica’s reporting on the deaths of Amber Thurman and Candi Miller, the names of committee members had been publicly released. Now, Georgia says releasing the identities would be a violation of state law”, Mar 4, 2025, Amy Yurkanin, ProPublica, at < https://www.propublica.org/
5). “Criminal Penalties for Physicians in State Abortion Bans”, Mar 4, 2025, Mabel Felix, Laurie Sobel, & Alina Salganicoff, KFF, at < https://www.kff.org/womens-
~~ recommended by dmorista ~~
Introduction by dmorista: The behind the scenes political/legal machinations to strip women of all rights to control their own bodies continue unabated. True Trump is not publicly thumping the table (and the bible), as he knows the issue is a loser for the MAGA right and the Republicans, but the issues continues to simmer and cook in the background. Jessica Valenti's article in Item 1)., “JD Vance is a Bad Father: ….”, reports that on Saturday in a clearly fishy event, Vance claimed protesters had menaced and scared his 3-year old daughter. He claims that he proposed a 5-minute conversation to discuss issues and not scare the little girl. Afterwards he posted this snarky statement on “X”.
The protesters state that they in no way menaced his daughter (let's get real Vance & daughter would have been escorted by the Secret Service plus whatever private security Vance has hired, they would have hardly allowed any protesters to threaten and menace his 3-year old daughter. Valenti notes this pointing out in Item 1)., that: “It’s no surprise that videos released today of Vance’s exchange with protesters don’t show his daughter being shouted at or followed. And as others have pointed out, it’s unlikely that Secret Service would allow anyone aggressive near the vice president and his toddler.” This is confirmed in the relatively even-handed Item 2)., “WATCH: Vice President ….”, that includes two embedded videos, one an interview with mild-mannered and very polite the gray-haired woman protester, who dismisses Vance's version for the disinformation that it is. Posted on “X” is another reply to Vance by one Brian Kassenstein, posted here below and available at
< https://x.com/krassenstein/
The overall Saturday incident is well characterized by Ms. Valenti who writes that:
“On Saturday, JD Vance tweeted about being confronted by a group of protesters while walking with his 3 year-old daughter, who “grew increasingly anxious and scared” as the demonstrators 'followed us around and shouted.' Vance engaged with the group, he claims, to keep them from further scaring his toddler, but that 'if you’re chasing a 3-year-old as part of a political protest, you’re a shit person.'
“What about forcing 10-year-olds into childbirth? Does that make you a shit person, too? Because while I don’t want any child afraid for any reason, I have to point out that quite a few American daughters are feeling 'increasingly anxious and scared' these days. And it’s not protesters they’re afraid of. (Emphasis added)
“While Vance cosplays as ‘protective dad’ online, his beloved abortion bans are regularly forcing little girls into childbirth. We’re talking about children with bodies too small to ride a roller coaster, now legally mandated to carry pregnancies to term.
“Does Vance believe in protecting little girls from broken pelvises and fistulas? Or his bravado reserved for children he can use as political shields? (Emphasis added) ….
“Vance does not 'stand up' for his daughter. Every day, he makes the world more dangerous for his children—especially his daughter, who will grow up in a country with fewer rights than her mother had. ….
“When Vance’s daughter looks back, I doubt she’ll care much about his ‘protective’ tweets—but she might wonder why he let women die of sepsis.”
In Item 3)., “Trump's FDA Pick ….” Abortion, Every Day provides the standard analysis of recent developments that has made Jessica Valenti the indispensable source for developments in Abortion Access and Reproductive Health Care Rights. The lead issue is the confirmation hearings for Marty Makary, for head of the FDA; Makary attracted national attention for his involvement in the case of Terri Schiavo. She was a brain-damaged Florida woman and Makary worked to stop her husband's attempts to have the machines that kept her “alive” disconnected and to allow her to die peacefully. Makary is also a long-term virulent opponent of women's rights to decide what to do with their bodies. I don't know if he is a sexual pervert, like the evil and loathsome Trump is, but he is no friend of women. The combined actions of the large and powerful Forced-Pregnancy / Forced-Birth political movement who are large in political and legal influence; but utterly disconnected from the American populace that increasingly continues to support women's access, (82% of respondents in recent polls don't want any governmental or political input into their reproductive healthcare and abortion decisions). Nonetheless at this point, 2 ½ years after the overturning of Roe about 40% of American women live in places where abortion is illegal and machinations to call abortion murder, with the death penalty as a consequence, are constantly being brought up as legislation in a number of Red States.
The fact that the population ovewhelmingly supports abortion access and reproductive healthcare rights has absolutely no affect on the Forced-Pregnancy / Forced-Birth political movement. They continue to try to advance their very unpopular and dangerous agenda. When ProPublica revealed the deaths of two Georgia Women due to lack of access to very basic abortion procedures the response of the reactionary Georgia political operation was to fire the entire 30 member Maternal Mortality Committee, and to replace them with toadies and hacks who will not bother to investigate the large numbers of deaths of pregnant women denied needed abortion care. Item 4)., “Georgia Won’t Say Who’s ….”, a recent ProPublica article looks at the secret appointment of members to that body.
Finally in Item 5). “Criminal Penalties for Physicians ….”, that serious scholarly article discusses the 11 states where criminal penalties for performing needed abortions have been passed. The article points out that:
“Eleven of the 12 states with abortion bans impose criminal penalties on clinicians who violate their respective bans. These penalties range in severity from a few months in prison to the possibility of a life sentence. All but two of these 11 states — Arkansas and South Dakota — impose minimum sentences for violation of their abortion bans. In Alabama, for example, violation of the total ban constitutes a Class A felony and carries a minimum prison sentence of ten years and a maximum sentence of 99 years. Class A felony is the most serious offense in Alabama, which places abortion in the same criminal category as murder and first-degree domestic violence. Other states place the violation of their abortion bans in the same category as crimes such as aggravated assault (Tennessee), involuntary manslaughter (Indiana), and stalking in violation of a protective order (Kentucky). West Virginia’s law does not include jail time for licensed physicians who violate the abortion ban, but it does include a 3–10-year sentence for other people who violate the law. However, other pre-Dobbs abortion restrictions in the state, such as minor consent requirements, carry criminal penalties for physicians.”
This is shown graphically in a map produced and posted in the article that I am posting here below.
JDVance IS a Bad Father
On Saturday, JD Vance tweeted about being confronted by a group of protesters while walking with his 3 year-old daughter, who “grew increasingly anxious and scared” as the demonstrators “followed us around and shouted.” Vance engaged with the group, he claims, to keep them from further scaring his toddler, but that “if you’re chasing a 3-year-old as part of a political protest, you’re a shit person.”
What about forcing 10-year-olds into childbirth? Does that make you a shit person, too? Because while I don’t want any child afraid for any reason, I have to point out that quite a few American daughters are feeling “increasingly anxious and scared” these days. And it’s not protesters they’re afraid of.
While Vance cosplays as ‘protective dad’ online, his beloved abortion bans are regularly forcing little girls into childbirth. We’re talking about children with bodies too small to ride a roller coaster, now legally mandated to carry pregnancies to term.
Does Vance believe in protecting little girls from broken pelvises and fistulas? Or his bravado reserved for children he can use as political shields?
What’s particularly sickening is seeing comment after comment on Twitter lauding the vice president. “Family is always off limits, especially children,” one user writes. Another calls on protesters to “leave the kids alone.” The one that sent me over the edge, though, was from someone who gushed, “it is nice to hear that your young daughter, who was scared, saw her role model stand up to the people scaring her.”
Give me the biggest fucking break. Vance does not “stand up” for his daughter. Every day, he makes the world more dangerous for his children—especially his daughter, who will grow up in a country with fewer rights than her mother had. There’s no Father’s Day card for men who turn their daughters into second-class citizens.
Let’s be real: JD Vance is a terrible father. How many little girls will grow up able to say their dad traded their rights away for a bit of political power and a pat on the head from the world’s worst man? When Vance’s daughter looks back, I doubt she’ll care much about his ‘protective’ tweets—but she might wonder why he let women die of sepsis.
The truth is that Vance’s protective posturing perfectly captures the empty masculinity of the Republican Party. It’s all bluster and showmanship with no real ‘protection.’ Conservative men love to play savior, so long as they don’t actually have to save us.
It’s the ‘protector’ label they love, not women.
After all, just look at the men running this country. Donald Trump has repeatedly sexualized his daughter Ivanka, saying she has “the best body” and that if they weren’t related, “perhaps I’d be dating her.” According to a book by Miles Taylor, former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, Trump also spoke to aides about Ivanka’s breasts, her backside, and “what it might be like to have sex with her.”
Then there’s Elon Musk, who has at least 14 children with four different women and is estranged from his 20-year-old daughter, Vivian Jenna Wilson. Musk has repeatedly and publicly misgendered Wilson, who is trans, calling her “dead, killed by the woke mind virus.” She has since spoke out about Musk’s “vicious” and “cruel” treatment of her as a child—like berating her for having a high voice.
Do these sound like the actions of men who love and ‘protect’ their daughters?
It’s no surprise that videos released today of Vance’s exchange with protesters don’t show his daughter being shouted at or followed. And as others have pointed out, it’s unlikely that Secret Service would allow anyone aggressive near the vice president and his toddler.
Still, I don’t think Vance completely fabricated his child’s fear—when my daughter was young, a group of protesters would have unsettled her, too. But if I asked her now, at 14, what scares her most, I know what she’d say.
Like me, she’s terrified for her future and the future of her friends. She’s afraid she’ll have to risk her health or life if she wants to have children one day. She worries about her trans classmates, who confide in her about their fear of losing access to life-saving healthcare. Most of all, she fears that the country she lives in doesn’t see her as a full human being.
It’s easy to ‘protect’ your daughter in a tweet. Making the world safe for them is a harder task—especially in a country run by men whose concern for their daughters only stretches as far as their political usefulness. Something tells me that when Vance’s daughter gets older, she’ll have the same fears that mine does. But what do I know? I’m just a woman, and we all know how the vice president feels about those.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
WATCH: Vice President JD Vance confronts Cincinnati protesters, condemns them on social media
CINCINNATI — Video shared with WCPO 9 shows Vice President JD Vance interacting with Cincinnati protesters headed to a Walnut Hills rally Saturday.
Vance posted on X condemning the protesters, claiming they followed him while he was walking with his 3-year-old daughter. Instead of ignoring the protesters, Vance said he decided to speak with them "in hopes that I could trade a few minutes of conversation for them leaving my toddler alone," he wrote.
"It was a mostly respectful conversation, but if you're chasing a 3-year-old as part of a political protest, you're a s—t person," Vance wrote on X.
Vance's post about the protesters came as dozens of people, many waving Ukrainian flags, rallied along William Howard Taft Road in Walnut Hills.
Ann Henry, who shared her video of the interaction with us, claims that Vance's X post is a complete fabrication of the incident. She says she and the other protesters spontaneously passed Vance as they were headed to the nearby protest.
"No one was chasing him," Henry told WCPO.
In the video, several protesters ask Vance questions regarding the war in Ukraine and Russia.
"We think it's in the best interest of our (own people) and frankly in the best interest of the Ukrainians for the war to stop," Vance said.
Vance also said Russia "certainly" invaded Ukraine in 2022, something that contradicts President Donald Trump's comments claiming Ukraine started the war.
When protesters said the U.S. is selling the Ukrainians out, Vance said he disagrees.
"With respect, ma'am, I disagree," Vance said. "I think that what we're doing is we're actually forcing a diplomatic settlement."
You can watch the full video of Vance and the protesters below:
Henry said she gives credit to Vance for speaking to protesters.
"I just wish he wouldn't have characterized it the way he did on Twitter," Henry said.
Henry said no one she knew was purposely following Vance.
"We all wanted it to be respectful and calm. We just really wanted to know what was really bothering us," Henry said.
Hear more about Henry's perspective in the video below:
Diana Ewald, a Ukrainian native who's lived in Cincinnati for 25 years and was a part of Saturday's rally, told us she's fighting for democracy.
"My whole family still lives in Ukraine," she said. "I'm embarrassed as an American Ukrainian to see what's happening in America and how we're abandoning our allies."
Organizers of the protest were also at the location Friday evening, and the group had planned to return Sunday as well.
Vance was home for the weekend, but WCPO 9 never heard back from his office as to exactly why he traveled home.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Trump's FDA Pick Drops Critical Hint On Abortion Pills
Click to skip ahead: Attacks on Abortion Pills dissects the comments on abortion medication from Trump’s FDA pick. Maternal Mortality Cover Up asks why Georgia won’t say who is on their maternal mortality review committee. In the States has news on Arizona, Wyoming, South Carolina and more. Attacks on Democracy reports that Florida wants to make it harder to pass ballot measures. In the Nation, some quick hits.
Attacks on Abortion Pills
You all know that conservatives’ number one anti-abortion priority is doing away with abortion pills. The medication—and telehealth, specifically—has made it possible for many patients in anti-choice states to end their pregnancies in spite of state laws. (Right now, about 1 in 5 abortions in the country are done via telehealth.) This infuriates Republicans, who are desperate both to make the pills impossible and to punish the providers shipping the medication.
So it comes as no surprise that Donald Trump’s pick to head up the FDA, Marty Makary, was seemingly elusive when asked about abortion medication during his confirmation hearing yesterday. But if you’re familiar with anti-abortion messaging —and know how to read between the lines—Makary’s position was crystal clear.
The doctor/author repeated RFK Jr’s talking points about “studying” the pills, even though there have been literally over a hundred studies showing that abortion medication is safe and effective. “I will do a review of the data,” Makary said. “I have no preconceived plans to make changes to the mifepristone policy.”
But there was one answer from Makary that painted a much clearer (and more chilling) picture of what he’d do as head of the FDA:
“I know personally of OB doctors who prefer, to insist, even though they have the option to prescribe otherwise, but they choose to insist that mifepristone be taken when necessary in their office as they observe the person taking. I think their concern there is that if this drug is used in the wrong hands, it could be used for coercion.” (Emphasis mine)
And there it is, anti-abortion activists’ favorite word of 2025: Coercion. Claiming that women are being coerced into ending their pregnancies is a great way to ban abortion while pretending to give a shit about what women want. Conservatives started to float the talking point in earnest back in 2023, when leading anti-abortion activists identified ‘coercion’ as the GOP’s most promising talking point because “no one is openly in favor of coerced abortions.”
Since then, we’ve seen it used everywhere—most notably in the case against Dr. Maggie Carpenter, a New York abortion provider indicted by Louisiana for (legally!) shipping abortion medication to a patient there.
Makary dropping ‘coercion,’ along with a line about doctors wanting to see patients in-person before prescribing the pills, is a good indication that he’ll restore the FDA’s pre-2016 rules for mifepristone. Those guidelines would only allow abortion medication to be prescribed during an in-person visit, limit its use to up to 7 weeks of pregnancy instead of 10, and restrict prescriptions to doctors (as opposed to other providers like nurse practitioners or physician assistants).
And that’s just what Makary said at the hearing! Trump’s FDA pick has a history of making false statements about abortion—like claiming fetuses feel pain and “resist the instruments of abortion.” He also bemoaned that health care professionals “can get fired” if they don’t support “abortion right up until the third trimester.”
So yeah, we know exactly who he is.
For more on Republicans’ plan for abortion medication, read Abortion, Every Day’s explainer on the most recent lawsuit brought by three Republican attorneys general:
Maternal Mortality Cover Up
In a move that is about as transparent as it gets, Georgia is refusing to release the names of the people on its newly-formed maternal mortality review committee. A department of health spokesperson told ProPublica that the names of the members are covered by “confidentiality protections”—a seemingly-new rule that didn’t exist back when the publication covered the committee in August.
What’s changed since then? Well, ProPublica reported on the deaths of two women—Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller, who were killed by Georgia’s abortion ban. You’d think when those stories broke that the state’s maternal mortality committee would be more important than ever. But no—instead, Republicans fired every single one of the 32 committee members.
Since Roe was overturned, this kind of brazen attack on data and accountability has become par for the course. In fact, one of the anti-abortion movement’s most chilling tactics is their attack on maternal mortality review committees.
These boards, which are meant to analyze a state’s maternal death rates and causes, really have become ground zero for conservatives’ efforts to hide just how many women their abortion bans are killing.
In addition to the dismissal of Georgia’s entire maternal mortality committee, we’ve watched Idaho disband their maternal mortality committee, and Texas announce that their committee wouldn’t report on maternal deaths in 2022 and 2023—the two years after the state passed an abortion ban.
But it doesn’t end there: Texas also placed Ingrid Skop on their committee—one of the country’s most well-known anti-abortion activists. Skop is perhaps the most egregious pick you could imagine for a committee like this: She believes that maternal mortality numbers are undercounting the number of deaths due to abortions, and has even argued that maternal death statistics should include women who die by suicide after having an abortion. (Even when there is no established link.)
Skop also believes that abortion is never necessary to save someone’s life, and thinks women with life-threatening pregnancies should be treated with c-sections instead of abortions—even before the fetus is viable.
So when Georgia refuses to release the names of who is on their newly-formed maternal mortality committee, you can imagine where my mind goes. I’ll keep you updated on this as I find out more.
In the States
Let’s talk about Arizona, where a judge has struck down the state’s 15-week abortion ban. Judge Frank Moskowitz ruled that the state is “permanently and forever enjoined and restrained from implementing, enforcing, or giving any effect” to the law.
The ruling comes after voters overwhelmingly passed pro-choice ballot measure Proposition 139. The new amendment codified abortion rights in the state constitution until ‘viability,’ and at any point if a doctor deems it necessary for a patient’s physical or mental health. Dr. Misha Pangasa, a physician at Planned Parenthood Arizona, called it “a huge moment for Arizonans.”
Attorney General Kris Mayes said the decision reaffirms that “the right to make personal medical decisions belongs to individuals, not politicians.” You may remember that Mayes and Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs pissed off conservatives in a big way over abortion rights: Hobbs granted AG Mayes with the authority to prosecute abortion cases, taking that ability away from district attorneys. It was essentially a way to ensure that no one was prosecuted for abortion ‘crimes’.
Arizona’s abortion laws came under national scrutiny last year when the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of an 1864 abortion ban—a law adopted before women had the right to vote. The backlash was so fierce that some Republicans voted alongside Democrats to repeal the law, lest they face voters’ ire on election day.
All of which is to say, the state’s pro-choice advocates have been through a lot. Even though Arizona’s 15-week ban has been repealed, later abortion patients still face hurdles because of the state’s ‘viability’ limit, while other restrictions target the most vulnerable.
In a statement, the Arizona Proactive Reproductive Justice Alliance says, “the legal right on paper means little for the most marginalized communities who cannot afford to navigate the dozens of restrictions still in place.”
“For people with low-incomes, those who live in rural areas, young people, and so many others targeted by racist and discriminatory policies, abortion remains effectively banned.”
Apparently Wyoming Republicans have nothing better to do than to pass anti-abortion legislation. Legislators have overridden Gov. Mark Gordon’s veto of legislation that will mandate abortion medication patients have medically-unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds.
Seriously: even the Republican governor thought that the law was too invasive! But the Wyoming GOP is just that desperate to get up in women’s business. Literally.
Christine Lichtenfels, executive director of Chelsea’s Fund, said, “We are saddened so many legislators lack empathy for women seeking abortion care and fundamental respect for women’s decision-making ability.”
Finally, South Carolina continues to vie for the worst of the worst. A new bill proposed by Republicans would amend the state code to declare that life begins at conception. As I reported yesterday, South Carolina Republicans also introduced legislation that would ban doctors from calling miscarriage treatment ‘abortion’—even when it is. It’s the kind of attack on language we need to pay very close attention to:
Also in South Carolina, the CEO of the Women’s Rights and Empowerment Network writes in the Post and Courier about the ”catastrophic cost” if the legislature were to advance Republicans’ total abortion ban:
“The truth is, this ban is not about protecting anyone — it is about control. It is about stripping away the rights of individuals to make their own private medical decisions. South Carolinians deserve the freedom to decide what is best for themselves, their families and their futures.”
Quick hits:
A Kentucky medical student writes about grappling with the choice of whether to stay in her home state or “leave Kentucky to pursue an education that ensures I can become the ob/gyn I aspire to be.”
Over at the Missouri Independent, activist Bonyen Lee-Gilmore explains why Missouri’s ‘born alive’ legislation is worse than you think.
And a reminder that beginning next year, abortion care will be covered in Colorado’s employee health plans and under publicly funded insurance.
“Protections mean nothing without support in our ability to access them. Legal protections don’t mean anything if you don’t have money in your bank account or gas in your tank, or if you can’t afford to pay for a babysitter while you go to the clinic.”
-Megan Jeyifo, executive director of the Chicago Abortion Fund, which went from spending $300k to support patients in 2020 to $5 million last year
Attacks on Democracy
We knew this was coming: A new Republican bill would make it harder for citizen-led initiatives to get on the ballot in Florida. Amendment 4 was way too close for comfort for Republicans—the pro-choice ballot measure got 57% of the vote and lost because of the 60% threshold for amending the state constitution.
That large majority of support came in spite of unprecedented attacks on democracy. Gov. Ron DeSantis launched a full-scale assault against the pro-choice amendment, using millions in taxpayer dollars, and flouting the law that prohibits the governor from using the power of his office to influence the outcome of an election. The Florida Republican weaponized state agencies to run a disinformation campaign against the amendment, threatening television stations with criminal charges for running ads for the measure, and even started a bogus ‘voter fraud’ investigation—sending cops to the homes of people who signed the petition.
Now, Republicans are pushing through SPB 7016 and HB 1205 under the guise of election integrity—claiming that the legislation will “increase transparency and accountability.”
In reality, it would just make it impossible for voters to have a direct say on issues they care about. For example, volunteer signature gatherers for petitions would have to register with the state; and Republicans would require a new onerous process to approve a financial impact statement—a move that’s actually about delaying signature-gathering efforts.
I’m confident it won’t end there. Just this past January, DeSantis proposed a series of new rules to gut the ballot initiative process, including eliminating petition gatherers entirely. (Under his plan, Floridians would have to go in person to their local Supervisor of Elections (SOE) office to sign a petition—or navigate an onerous, multi-step mail-in process.)
The short version? They know voters support abortion rights, and they want to make sure that they don’t ever get a say.
In the Nation
The Washington Post on the Trump administration dropping the emergency abortion case against Idaho;
The UNFPA explains the devastating consequences of the Trump administration’s funding cuts
Yes Magazine calls for moving beyond ‘restoring Roe.”
And Agence France-Presse on the coming interstate battle over abortion medication.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Georgia Won’t Say Who’s Now Serving on Its Maternal Mortality Committee After Dismissing All Members Last Year
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.
Georgia recently relaunched its maternal mortality review committee after dismissing all 32 of its members last year. But state officials won’t say who the current members are.
The dismissals were in response to ProPublica obtaining internal reports in which the committee detailed the “preventable” deaths of two women who were unable to obtain legal abortions or timely care after Georgia banned abortion.
In September, ProPublica published stories on the deaths of Amber Thurman and Candi Miller. They were the first reported cases of women who died without access to care restricted by a state abortion ban. Before those stories, the state Department of Public Health had released the names of committee members to ProPublica. Now it’s saying that releasing the names would be a violation of state law.
The law states that the work of the committee is confidential and that some records and reports obtained and created by the committee are not covered by public records laws. The law does not state that committee members’ identities are confidential. However, Department of Public Health spokesperson Nancy Nydam said the department’s review of the law “determined that the broad confidentiality protections directed toward the committee should be extended to the identities of the committee members.” She did not respond to questions about why the department could share committee members’ names in August but not now.
The newly appointed committee, which reviews maternal deaths and makes recommendations to improve care for pregnant women, held its first meeting Feb. 21.
If the public doesn’t know who is on a committee, it could create mistrust of its findings, said Elizabeth Dawes, director of maternal and reproductive health at the Century Foundation, a public-policy nonprofit. She has been an advocate for Black mothers, who die from causes related to pregnancy or birth at higher rates than other groups.
“If everything is confidential, there’s no way to really be able to trust what comes out of it,” Dawes said. “They could completely ignore abortion. They could completely ignore race, racism, discrimination, and say what they want to say.”
Dawes said those questions are particularly important in Georgia. The state has one of the nation’s highest rates of maternal death, especially among Black women, who die at twice the rate of white women.
The stories of Thurman and Miller sparked widespread outrage about the effects of abortion bans; Georgia law bans the procedure after six weeks.
Thurman, who traveled to North Carolina and obtained abortion pills, died from sepsis after doctors in Georgia delayed the removal of infected tissue that remained in her uterus. Her case, and others identified in Georgia and Texas, show the dangers women face in states that force hospitals and doctors to weigh criminal laws against abortion before providing care.
Less than two months after ProPublica published the stories, the commissioner of the Georgia Department of Public Health, Dr. Kathleen Toomey, sent a Nov. 8 letter to all members of the committee stating that information had been inappropriately shared with an outside source.
“Even though this disclosure was investigated, the investigation was unable to uncover which individual(s) disclosed confidential information,” Toomey wrote. “Therefore, effective immediately the current MMRC is disbanded, and all member seats will be filled through a new application process.”
That application process ended earlier this year. The Department of Public Health denied ProPublica’s Open Records Act request for the names of new members on Feb. 27, three weeks after the request was made. In a response, a staff member said 30 people had been appointed to the board and attached language from a letter inviting new members to the committee’s first meeting on Feb. 21.
All 50 states, as well as other localities, have maternal mortality review committees. They examine the deaths of pregnant women and new mothers to identify gaps in care and provide recommendations to improve treatment. ProPublica recently found that the names of committee members in 18 states with abortion restrictions were publicly available, or accessible through a public records request.
Recently, some states have come under fire for allegedly politicizing the work of these committees.
The maternal mortality review committee in Idaho was allowed to go dormant in 2023 after conservative groups attacked its recommendation to expand Medicaid for postpartum women. The state has since revived the committee as an advisory body to the State Board of Medicine.
Also in 2023, Texas lawmakers changed the composition of the state’s committee more than a year after a member spoke out about a delay in releasing a report. She lost her seat. Officials later appointed an anti-abortion obstetrician, Dr. Ingrid Skop, to the group. The Texas MMRC is also not reviewing deaths from 2022 or 2023, a period covering the first year and a half after Roe v. Wade was overturned.
In the letter last year dismissing the members of Georgia’s committee, Toomey wrote that the shake-up of the board would not delay its work. Nydam said in February that Department of Public Health staff members have continued their work while the committee has been inactive.
“The work of the MMRC has not stopped,” Nydam wrote in an email. “It has continued with our staff doing case abstractions, which they do regardless, before the cases go to the MMRC.”
However, a person familiar with the committee’s work, who because of her continuing work with the Department of Public Health asked not to be named, said the full committee usually met every other month. Subcommittees met even more frequently to review cases.
“There’s no way there’s not going to be a delay unless they are going to meet every week,” she said.
The Georgia MMRC was beginning to identify deaths from 2023 when all members were dismissed.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Criminal Penalties for Physicians in State Abortion Bans | KFF
Introduction
There have been several high-profile cases regarding exceptions to save the health or the life of pregnant patients in state abortion bans. Major cases that have reached the US Supreme Court (Moyle v. Idaho) and Texas Supreme Court (Zurawski v. Texas) have highlighted the significant challenges for physicians providing pregnancy-related care in states with abortion bans. According to a 2023 KFF survey, 61% of OBGYNs practicing in states where abortion is banned report being concerned about their legal risk when making decisions about patient care and the necessity of abortion care for their patients. Some of the concern about legal risks stems from the “reasonable medical judgment” legal standard used in most states for when an abortion qualifies for an exception. This legal standard does not defer to the treating physician’s judgment but rather allows a court to review circumstances after the abortion has been completed and rely on the testimony of other medical experts to determine whether the treating physician met the standard. Some anti-abortion advocates, legislators, and state attorneys general maintain, however, that it is physicians, not the abortion bans, that are responsible for denial and delays of care, and have implied that providers should face medical malpractice lawsuits for not properly following the exceptions. This brief examines the legal considerations for physicians providing abortion care, including criminal and professional penalties, as well as the potential for medical malpractice lawsuits for delayed care to patients due to bans and prosecution for violation of abortion bans across state lines.
What Criminal Penalties Do Physicians Face for Providing Abortions?
Eleven of the 12 states with abortion bans impose criminal penalties on clinicians who violate their respective bans. These penalties range in severity from a few months in prison to the possibility of a life sentence. All but two of these 11 states — Arkansas and South Dakota — impose minimum sentences for violation of their abortion bans. In Alabama, for example, violation of the total ban constitutes a Class A felony and carries a minimum prison sentence of ten years and a maximum sentence of 99 years. Class A felony is the most serious offense in Alabama, which places abortion in the same criminal category as murder and first-degree domestic violence. Other states place the violation of their abortion bans in the same category as crimes such as aggravated assault (Tennessee), involuntary manslaughter (Indiana), and stalking in violation of a protective order (Kentucky). West Virginia’s law does not include jail time for licensed physicians who violate the abortion ban, but it does include a 3–10-year sentence for other people who violate the law. However, other pre-Dobbs abortion restrictions in the state, such as minor consent requirements, carry criminal penalties for physicians.
In addition, penalties include fines, and in many states, violation of the abortion ban or conviction of a felony are grounds for medical license revocation. If a physician’s license is revoked, even after they have served their sentence, they may not return to practicing medicine. License revocation penalties jeopardize physicians’ livelihoods. In many states, license revocation in a different state is grounds for denying a new medical license or revoking an existing license. This means that if a physician loses their license as a result of providing an abortion in a state where abortion is banned, they may not be able to practice medicine in other parts of the country.
Many states where abortion rights are supported have passed laws to protect clinicians from losing their license, amending their licensing provisions such that if a physician’s license has been revoked in a different state solely due to the provision of abortion care that would have been lawful in the state, the physician may not be denied a license. However, in these circumstances, there is no certainty that a physician would be able to receive a license in another state. And even if physicians had the certainty, continuing to practice medicine would require moving to another state.
No clinician has yet been convicted and jailed for performing an abortion since the Dobbs ruling, but a physician in New York, where abortion is protected, has been charged with a felony crime for mailing medication abortion pills that were given to a minor in Louisiana (discussed below). However, there have been cases indicating that the threat of criminal prosecution has led physicians to delay health- or life-preserving care and prevented them from practicing medicine based on accepted standards of care. A UCSF study identified multiple cases of patients with pregnancy complications being denied abortion care that met clinical standards in states where abortion is banned. Cases included second trimester obstetric complications such as preterm labor, preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes (PPROM), hemorrhage, cervical dilation, and hypertension, as well as ectopic pregnancy, Abortion care was also denied in case of patients with underlying medical conditions that made continuing a pregnancy dangerous, who were experiencing miscarriages, or were carrying a pregnancy with a severe fetal anomaly.
Medical Malpractice
While physicians are faced with criminal and professional penalties if they provide abortion care for health reasons that are later second-guessed in court, if they do not provide this care or delay it, they could potentially be sued for medical malpractice for failing to provide timely and necessary care.
Post-Dobbs, there are no documented cases of medical malpractice lawsuits being filed by pregnant patients who were denied care or did not receive it in a timely manner. However, there have been growing calls from anti-abortion advocates to hold treating physicians liable for delays or denials of miscarriage management care or other care to pregnant people.
In response to calls for exceptions to abortion bans to be widened in scope or be further clarified, anti-abortion lawmakers and attorneys general have argued that it is not policies, but rather the physicians who are at fault in situations where care has been delayed or denied. For instance, in the case Zurawski v. Texas, where women facing dangerous pregnancy complications who had been denied emergency abortion care and two OB-GYNs asked Texas courts to clarify the scope of the medical emergency exceptions in the state’s abortion bans, attorneys for the state of Texas argued that it was not the state’s abortion bans that prevented plaintiffs from receiving timely care. Instead, he argued that physicians committed malpractice and are at fault and suggested that people should sue their physicians, not the state, when they are unable to receive timely abortion care in life-threatening medical emergencies.
Prosecution of Providers Across State Lines
In 2023, some states started passing “shield” laws. These laws aim to protect physicians from prosecution brought by states where abortion is banned as long as the physician is located within the state with the shield law and the care they provided is legal in that same state, regardless of patient location. From July 2023 through June 2024, the Society of Family Planning estimates that 1 in 10 abortions in the U.S. have been medication abortions for which the pills were mailed by providers practicing in states with shield laws.
In December 2024, in the first action testing a shield law, the Texas Attorney General filed a lawsuit against a New York doctor for mailing medication abortion pills into the state. The lawsuit alleges the physician violated Texas law by practicing medicine in the state of Texas without a Texas license and for violating the state’s abortion ban and prohibitions on telehealth for abortion care. On February 13, 2025, after the physician did not respond to the lawsuit or appear at court proceedings, a trial court issued a default judgment for the state, enjoining the physician from prescribing medication abortions to Texas residents and ordering her to pay $100,000 in civil fines. Additionally, in January 2025, a Louisiana grand jury indicted the same New York physician for violating Louisiana’s abortion ban and restrictions. The mother of the minor who received the medication abortion was also indicted. Shield laws in the state of New York seek to protect providers from this kind of litigation, so these cases will likely serve as a test case for shield laws and their ability to protect clinicians providing abortion care via telehealth to patients located in states that ban or restrict abortion. In the Louisiana case, however, the minor’s mother does not have a similar protection from the ban.
Challenges to Exceptions to Abortion Bans
In response to the abortion bans, physicians practicing in Idaho, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas have filed lawsuits challenging the vagueness, narrowness, and lack of deference to physician judgment of the medical exceptions in state abortion bans. Among other claims, these challenges contend the vagueness of the exceptions unduly places physicians’ livelihoods and liberty at stake. Additionally, a complaint filed by South Carolina providers argues the state ban’s exceptions violate their First Amendment rights to practice their faith, which includes beliefs that they should use their medical training to honor patients’ requests to end pregnancies that threaten to profoundly harm them or when a fetus is diagnosed with a fatal anomaly, beyond what the exceptions allow.
The Texas Supreme Court has issued rulings in both the challenges in the state – Zurawski v. Texas and Cox v. Texas – ruling in favor of the state and leaving the narrow exceptions untouched. A Tennessee court partly granted a preliminary injunction blocking the state from taking disciplinary action against physicians who provide abortion care to safeguard the health of the pregnant person (unlike Texas, Tennessee has a health exception to their abortion ban). However, because the court lacked authority over criminal laws, it did not block criminal enforcement of the law against physicians. Whether or not these lawsuits will ultimately expand the scope of the exceptions or the deference granted to physician judgment will depend on the rulings of each state’s respective supreme court.
