Tag: Courts

Legal Questions, Inquiries Intensify Around Noble Health’s Rural Missouri Hospital Closures

A year after private equity-backed Noble Health shuttered two rural Missouri hospitals, patients and former employees grapple with a broken local health system or missing out on millions in unpaid wages and benefits.

The hospitals in Audrain and Callaway counties remain closed as a slew of lawsuits and state and federal investigations grind forward.

In March, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey confirmed a civil investigation. He had previously told local talk radio that there was an “ongoing” investigation into “the hospital issue.”

Bailey’s comment came weeks after the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration notified executives tied to Noble Health, a startup, that they had violated federal laws and asked them to pay $5.4 million to cover unpaid employee health insurance claims, according to a 13-page letter detailing “interim findings” that was obtained by KHN.

The January letter confirms KHN’s previous reporting, which was informed by employees and patients who described missing paychecks; receiving unexpected, high-dollar medical bills; and going without care, including cancer treatment. According to the letter from federal investigators, the Noble hospitals and their corporate owners collected employee contributions for medical, dental, and vision insurance in 2021 and 2022 but then failed to fund the insurance plans.

The owners and executives were “aware of the harm to participants and, in some cases, were attempting to resolve individual participant complaints,” the letter states, adding that “despite the volume and gravity of complaints and bills received,” they failed to respond.

A photo of a two-year-old boy with spina bifida in a walker.
Ryder Hagedorn was born with spina bifida. His parents have struggled to pay for specialty care since claims were denied by a health plan his mother, Marissa, was offered through her employer. She is one of several former employees of Noble Health who say they were left with substantial medical bills after the company shuttered its two rural Missouri hospitals.(Marissa Hagedorn)

‘Tomfoolery’ and Doing ‘Everybody Dirty’

Marissa Hagedorn, who worked as a hospital laboratory technician, has spent much of the past year starting a new job, caring for her 2-year-old son who was born with spina bifida, and haggling over unpaid medical bills. She told KHN the family owes at least $8,000 for son Ryder’s specialty care in St. Louis, with $6,000 of that in collections. As a Noble employee, Hagedorn said, she was told repeatedly that her employee health insurance would cover Ryder’s care. It didn’t.

Noble has “done everybody dirty,” she said. “We just would like for some responsibility to be taken by this company that didn’t feel the need to get their act together.” Hagedorn’s story of unpaid bills, which was first reported by the local newspaper, the Mexico Ledger, is common among former Noble employees a year after the hospitals closed.

A former employee of the Fulton hospital has filed a class-action lawsuit intended to represent hundreds of employees from both hospitals.

The Jan. 13 letter from federal officials called for responses by Jan. 27 from Noble corporate and hospital executives as well as Platinum Neighbors, which last April bought the hospitals and assumed all liabilities. The letter instructs executives to contact the agency “to discuss how you intend to correct these violations, fund participant claims, and achieve compliance.”

Former employees say their claims have not yet been paid. A Labor Department spokesperson, Grant Vaught, said the agency could not comment on an ongoing investigation.

Separately, the Kansas Department of Labor is reviewing Noble and Platinum’s failure to pay wages and severance to corporate employees. Agency spokesperson Becky Shaffer confirmed that hearings took place in early February on a half-dozen cases totaling more than $1 million in claims for unpaid wages and severance.

Dave Kitchens was among those who filed claims against Noble Health. Kitchens worked briefly as a contract employee and then was hired in October 2021 as a corporate controller, an accounting role in which he was responsible for financial reporting and data analytics. Kitchens provided an audio recording of his hearing to KHN and hopes to eventually get paid more than $90,000 in lost wages, benefits, and severance pay. During the hearing, Kitchens told the administrative judge: “I would just like to be paid what I’m owed.”

Kitchens, who is also named as a fiduciary on the federal investigation, said he was not on Noble’s executive team. When asked by Kansas Administrative Law Judge James Ward whether he expected Noble or the secondary buyer Platinum to pay his wages, Kitchens responded he had “no idea who was in charge.”

“I believe there was some tomfoolery,” Kitchens said.

A ‘Rabbit Hole’ of Responsibility

Noble launched in December 2019 with executives who had never run a hospital, including Donald R. Peterson, a co-founder who prior to joining Noble had been accused of Medicare fraud. Peterson settled that case without admitting wrongdoing and in August 2019 agreed to be excluded for five years from Medicare, Medicaid, and all other taxpayer-funded federal health programs, according to the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General.

By March 2022, the hospitals had closed and Noble offered explanations on social media, including “a technology issue” and a need to “restructure their operations” to keep the hospitals financially viable. In April, Texas-based Platinum Neighbors paid $2 for the properties and all liabilities, according to the stock purchase agreement.

Despite receiving approval for nearly $20 million in federal covid-19 relief money before it closed the hospitals — funds whose use is still not fully accounted for — Noble had stopped paying its bills, according to court records. Contractors, including nursing agencies, a lab that ran covid tests and landscapers, have filed lawsuits seeking millions.

In Audrain County, where community members still hope to reopen the hospital or build a new one, county leaders filed suit for the repayment of a $1.8 million loan they made to Noble. Former Missouri state senator Jay Wasson also filed suit in September, asking for repayment of a $500,000 loan.

Two Noble Health real estate entities filed bankruptcy petitions this year. One Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing names the Fulton hospital property in Callaway County as an asset and lists nearly $4.9 million in liabilities. A third bankruptcy filing by FMC Clinic includes Noble Health as a codebtor.

In the U.S. District Court of Kansas, Central Bank of the Midwest is suing Nueterra Capital over a $9.6 million loan Noble used to buy the Audrain hospital. The bank alleges Nueterra, a private equity and venture capital firm that in 2022 included Noble as part of its portfolio, signed off as the guarantor of the loan.

Federal investigators listed nearly a dozen people or entities connected to Noble Health as fiduciaries who they say are personally responsible for paying back millions in unpaid medical claims. The letter also detailed Noble Health’s ownership for the first time. The owners included William A. Solomon with a 16.82% share, Thomas W. Carter with a 16.82% share, The Peterson Trust with a 19.63%, and NC Holdings Inc. with 46.72%.

NC Holdings is also listed on the stock sale agreement with Platinum along with several signatures including Jeremy Tasset, chief executive of Nueterra Capital.

Tasset did not respond to a request for comment for this article. In an email to KHN in March 2022, the Nueterra Capital CEO wrote, “We are a minority investor in the real estate and have nothing to do with the operations of the hospitals.” In May 2022, Tasset wrote in an email to KHN that “everything was sold (real estate included) to Platinum Neighbors, a subsidiary of Platinum Team Management.”

It is unclear who owns and controls The Peterson Trust, which federal investigators identified. Peterson, who is listed on Noble’s state registration papers as a director and in other roles, didn’t respond to requests for comment for this article. He previously told KHN that his involvement in Noble didn’t violate his exclusion, in his reading of the law.

He said he owned 3% of the company, citing guidance from the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Federal regulators may exclude companies if someone who is banned has ownership of 5% or more.

In March 2022, Peterson created Noble Health Services, which federal investigators note in their letter was “established to restructure the ownership of multiple Noble entities.” Peterson dissolved that company in July 2022, according to a Missouri business filing.

In September, Peterson posted on LinkedIn that he was “sitting in the Emirates Air lounge in Dubai” to finish up due diligence on “launching a new business.”

A 2013 OIG advisory states that “an excluded individual may not serve in an executive or leadership role” and “may not provide other types of administrative and management services … unless wholly unrelated to federal health care programs.”

KHN examined the federal system meant to stop health care business owners and executives from repeatedly bilking government health programs and found that it failed to do so.

The OIG keeps a public list of people and businesses it has banned from all federal health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. KHN’s review found a system devoid of oversight and rife with legal gray areas.

In the wake of KHN’s reporting, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat who is the chair of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, said “it’s imperative that federal watchdogs can ensure bad actors are kept out of Medicare.” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said the government needs to do more and “it’s also up to private-sector entities to do a better job checking against the exclusions list.”

“We can’t just depend on one or the other to do everything,” Grassley said.

In recent months, the Missouri hospitals appear to have been sold twice more, according to public records. Oregon-based Saint Pio of Pietrelcina notified state officials of a change of ownership in December and requested an extension of the hospital licenses, which was denied. In January, Audrain County officials, in its lawsuit, revealed another owner named Pasture Medical, which registered as a Wyoming company on Dec. 27, 2022.

“We haven’t come out of the rabbit hole on this one,” said Steve Bollin, director of the division of regulation and licensure for the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. Bollin’s agency, which conducts inspections and approves hospital changes in ownership, said he would support his agency doing financial reviews.

“It’s probably not a bad idea that someone takes a little bit deeper dive. We don’t have that many changes of ownership, but we would need appropriate staffing to do that, including some really good CPAs [certified public accountants].”

Related Topics


Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

Judge Signals He Could Rule to Halt Sales of Common Abortion Pill

[embedded content]

During a four-hour hearing last week that could eliminate nationwide access to a common and widely used abortion pill, federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, of the Northern District of Texas, signaled his conservative Christian beliefs early and often.

Speaking from the bench in a courtroom in Amarillo, Texas, Kacsmaryk repeatedly used language that mimicked the vocabulary of anti-abortion activists. It also reflected the wording of the lawyers seeking to overturn the FDA’s two-decade-old approval of mifepristone, one of the drugs in the two-pill regimen approved for early pregnancy termination.

Each time a lawyer from the Department of Justice, representing the FDA, referred to “medication abortion,” Kacsmaryk returned to the language of conservative Christian activists, using monikers like “chemical abortion” and “mail-in abortion,” phrases at odds with conventional medical terminology.

The stakes in the case, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are high: Abortion rights advocates fear that Kacsmaryk, an appointee of then-President Donald Trump and a former lawyer at the First Liberty Institute, a conservative Christian legal group, could rule within days to force manufacturers to pull mifepristone from the market nationwide. If that happens, clinics and obstetricians and gynecologists across the country will be able to prescribe only misoprostol, the second drug in the two-pill regimen, for miscarriages and early abortion care. Misoprostol is still extremely safe but less effective and comes with more side effects.

The ruling would be unprecedented in the history of approved drugs and could affect the health care of millions of women, even those in states where abortion is still legal.

“One conservative judge is impacting the rights of women in California and New York,” said Greer Donley, an associate professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh Law School and expert on reproductive health law. “The endgame is to stop as many abortions as possible by any means necessary.”

When the conservative majority on the Supreme Court eliminated the federal right to abortion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Catholic, wrote that the court was not outlawing abortion throughout the United States. “On the contrary,” Kavanaugh wrote, “the Court’s decision properly leaves the question of abortion for the people and their elected representatives in the democratic process.”

But in the nine months since the announcement of the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Christian legal groups have made their strategy clear: eliminate abortion nationwide by filing lawsuits in federal courts that make scientific claims, unsupported by mainstream medical organizations, to raise doubts about the safety of abortion pills and contraception.

These legal decisions, which conservatives might once have decried as “judicial activism,” are partially necessary because abortion rights continually poll positively, with voters even in solidly conservative states like Kansas and Kentucky refusing to enact bans.

“After Dobbs, there have been more and more efforts to move things away from the popular majority and into the hands of judges like Kacsmaryk,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor and abortion historian at the University of California-Davis School of Law. “Because voters are not sold on fetal rights and because the only way to a national ban on abortion is likely to come from the conservative courts,” she said.

Ziegler added of anti-abortion campaigners, “They don’t want solutions that work only in Tennessee and Texas.”

The strategy of casting doubt on established and accepted science is not new in conservative circles, nor is it limited to abortion.

For decades, conservative Christian legal groups have introduced scientific uncertainty where there had been none: Claims that abortion causes breast cancer or infertility are unsupported by medical and scientific research but nevertheless made their way into state laws, requiring physicians in certain states to tell patients about risks from abortion that do not exist.

And in a recent opinion that ended birth control access for teens without parental consent in Texas, the same judge as in the mifepristone case — Kacsmaryk — exaggerated the health risks of prescription birth control in his decision, asserting that states have an interest in protecting the health of girls.

“Several popular methods of birth control carry serious side effects,” Kacsmaryk wrote, later quoting from Planned Parenthood educational material that read, “Complications are rare, but they can be serious. In very rare cases, they can lead to death.”

That case, Deanda v. Becerra, was filed by a Christian father who cited religious objections to a federal family planning program. And in the mifepristone case, fundamentalist Christian groups have argued that the drug is unsafe, despite ample research and decades of use testifying to the contrary.

Alliance Defending Freedom, which describes itself as the world’s largest legal organization committed to protecting “God’s design for marriage and family,” is pushing to outlaw abortion pills. Erik Baptist, an attorney for the group, said in a statement following the March 15 hearing that the “the FDA’s approval of chemical abortion drugs over 20 years ago has always stood on shaky legal and moral ground.”

He added, “It’s time for the government to do what it’s legally required to do: protect the health and safety of vulnerable women and girls.”

Conservative legal groups like ADF have been savvy about exploiting small wins in the courts and building on them, such as the 2007 decision Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld a federal ban on a rarely used method of abortion.

The decision had minimal practical impact, as the procedure in question was rarely performed, but it established an important legal principle: When scientific uncertainty arises in legal disputes — is a medical procedure, device, or medication safe or not? — legislatures get to decide.

“The court said when there is scientific uncertainty the tiebreaker goes to the legislature,” said Ziegler.

But there is little question that mifepristone is safe: More than 5.6 million women have successfully used medication abortion since 2000, according to the FDA. In 2008, the Government Accountability Office investigated the FDA’s approval of mifepristone and concluded the process was consistent with FDA regulations.

In the courtroom, Baptist acknowledged that no court had ever ordered the FDA to remove a drug from the market over the agency’s objections, and legal observers say there remains a huge question whether the court can order the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, who oversees the FDA, to do so.

But Laurie Sobel, an associate director for women’s health policy at KFF, who listened to the hearing in a Dallas courtroom, said anti-abortion attorneys argued that the mailing of abortion medications strips states of their ability to protect women and children. (The hearing, which Kacsmaryk did not, initially, publicly announce, was not streamed to the public, and the court has yet to release a transcript.)

But Jessica Ellsworth, an attorney representing Danco Laboratories, a manufacturer of mifepristone, told the court that abortion remained legal in all states because it was allowed for preventing a patient’s death or serious bodily injury. Using mifepristone is the safest method of abortion, she argued, noting the judge’s decision in the case could ban it in every state.

“If Kavanaugh said, ‘We’re going to send it back to the states to be decided by their elected representatives,’ this is the exact opposite,” said Donley.

Kacsmaryk appeared ready to grant a preliminary injunction in favor of anti-abortion groups, asking ADF’s Baptist what kind of remedy he was seeking.

Baptist responded, “The court has an interest in preventing dangerous drugs from entering the marketplace.” He added, “Any relief you grant must be complete. The harm of chemical drugs knows no bound.”

Related Topics


Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

California’s Covid Misinformation Law Is Entangled in Lawsuits, Conflicting Rulings

Gov. Gavin Newsom may have been prescient when he acknowledged free speech concerns as he signed California’s covid misinformation bill last fall. In a message to lawmakers, the governor warned of “the chilling effect other potential laws may have” on the ability of doctors to speak frankly with patients but expressed confidence that the one he was signing did not cross that line.

Yet the law — meant to discipline doctors who give patients false information about covid-19 — is now in legal limbo after two federal judges issued conflicting rulings in recent lawsuits that say it violates free speech and is too vague for doctors to know what it bars them from telling patients.

In two of the lawsuits, Senior U.S. District Judge William Shubb in Sacramento issued a temporary halt on enforcing the law, but it applies only to the plaintiffs in those cases. Shubb said the law was “unconstitutionally vague,” in part because it “fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited.” His ruling last month clashed with one handed down in Santa Ana in December; in that case, U.S. District Judge Fred Slaughter refused to halt the law and said it was “likely to promote the health and safety of California covid-19 patients.”

The legal fight in the nation’s most populous state is to some extent a perpetuation of the pandemic-era tussle pitting supporters of public health guidelines against groups and individuals who resisted masking orders, school shutdowns, and vaccine mandates.

California’s covid misinformation law, which took effect Jan. 1, is being challenged by vaccine skeptics and civil liberties groups. Among those suing to get the law declared unconstitutional is a group founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has questioned the science and safety of vaccines for years.

But doubts about the law are not confined to those who have battled the scientific mainstream.

Dr. Leana Wen, a health policy professor at George Washington University who previously served as president of Planned Parenthood and as Baltimore’s health commissioner, wrote in an op-ed a few weeks before Newsom signed the law that it would exert “a chilling effect on medical practice, with widespread repercussions that could paradoxically worsen patient care.”

The Northern California affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union has weighed in against the law on free speech grounds, though the national organization has affirmed the constitutionality of covid vaccine mandates.

“If doctors are scared of losing their licenses for giving advice that they think is helpful and appropriate, but they don’t quite know what the law means, they will be less likely to speak openly and frankly with their patients,” said Hannah Kieschnick, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

The law establishes that doctors who give false information about covid to patients are engaging in unprofessional conduct, which could subject them to discipline by the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California.

Proponents of the law sought to crack down on what they believe are the most clear-cut cases: Doctors who tout treatments such as ivermectin, an anti-parasitic agent that is unproven as a covid treatment and can be dangerous; who exaggerate the risk of getting vaccinated compared with the dangers of the disease; or who spread unfounded theories about the vaccines, including that they can cause infertility or harm DNA.

But the law lacks such specifics, defining misinformation only as “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”

Michelle Mello, a professor of law and health policy at Stanford University, said the wording is confusing.

“On a matter like covid, science is changing all the time, so what does it mean to say there is scientific consensus?” she asked. “To me, there are lots of examples of statements that clearly, with no vagueness involved, meet the definition of the kind of conduct that the legislature was going after. The problem is that there are all kinds of other hypothetical things that people can say that don’t clearly violate it.”

Dr. Christine Cassel, a professor of medicine at the University of California-San Francisco, said she expects the law to be applied only in the most flagrant cases. “I trust scientists enough to know where there’s a legitimate dispute,” she said.

Cassel’s view mirrors Newsom’s rationale for signing the legislation despite his awareness of potential free speech concerns. “I am confident,” he wrote in his message to lawmakers, “that discussing emerging ideas or treatments including the subsequent risks and benefits does not constitute misinformation or disinformation under this bill’s criteria.”

Plaintiffs in the Santa Ana case, two doctors who have sometimes diverged from public health guidelines, appealed Slaughter’s ruling allowing the law to stand. The case has been combined in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals with another case in which a San Diego judge declined to rule on a similar request to temporarily halt the law.

Newsom spokesperson Brandon Richards said in early February that the administration would not appeal the two Sacramento cases in which Shubb issued the narrow injunction. The plaintiffs’ lawyers had expected the state to appeal the decision, thinking all four lawsuits would then be decided by the appeals court, providing greater clarity for all parties.

Richard Jaffe, lead attorney in one of the Sacramento cases — brought by a doctor, Kennedy’s Children’s Health Defense, and a group called Physicians for Informed Consent — said Newsom’s decision not to appeal is “just going to increase the level of chaos in terms of who the law applies to.”

But the Newsom administration has decided to wait for the appeals court to rule on the other two judges’ decisions that left the law intact for now.

Jenin Younes, a lawyer with the New Civil Liberties Alliance who is lead counsel in the other Sacramento case in which Shubb issued his injunction, said Newsom may be calculating that “you’re in a stronger position going up on a win than on a loss.”

A victory for Newsom in the appeals court, Jaffe and others said, could dampen the impact of the two Sacramento cases.

Opponents of California’s covid misinformation law question why it is needed at all, since the medical boards already have authority to discipline doctors for unprofessional conduct. Yet only about 3% of the nearly 90,000 complaints the Medical Board of California received over a decade resulted in doctors being disciplined, according to a 2021 investigation by the Los Angeles Times.

That could be good news for doctors who worry the new law could constrain their ability to advise patients.

“I don’t see medical boards being particularly vigorous in policing physicians’ competence in general,” said Stanford’s Mello. “You have to be really bad to get their attention.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Related Topics


Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

Judging the Abortion Pill

The Host

This week, the eyes of the nation are on Texas, where a federal judge who formerly worked for a conservative Christian advocacy group is set to decide whether the abortion pill mifepristone can stay on the market. Mifepristone is half of a two-pill regimen that now accounts for more than half of the abortions in the United States.

Meanwhile, Novo Nordisk, another of the three large drug companies that dominate the market for diabetes treatments, has announced it will cut the price of many of its insulin products. Eli Lilly announced its cuts early this month. But the push for more affordable insulin from activists and members of Congress is not the only reason for the change: Because of quirks in the way the drug market works, cutting prices could actually save the companies money in the long run.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • The federal judge examining the decades-old approval of mifepristone could issue a decision at any time after a hearing largely behind closed doors, during which he appeared open to restricting access to the drug.
  • Democratic governors seek to counter the chill of Republican states’ warnings to pharmacies about distributing mifepristone, and a separate lawsuit in Texas seeks to set a precedent for punishing people who aren’t medical providers for assisting someone in obtaining an abortion.
  • In pandemic news, Congress is moving forward with legislation that would force the Biden administration to declassify intelligence related to the origins of covid-19, while the editor of Cochrane Reviews posted a clarification of its recently published masking study, noting it is “inaccurate” to say it found that masks are not effective.
  • Top federal health officials sent an unusual letter to Florida’s surgeon general, warning that his embrace of vaccination misinformation is harmful, even deadly, to Americans. While covid vaccines come with some risk of negative health effects, contracting covid carries a higher risk of poor outcomes.
  • Novo Nordisk’s announcement that it will cut insulin prices puts pressure on Sanofi, the remaining insulin maker that has yet to adjust its prices.
  • The Veterans Health Administration will cover Leqembi, a new Alzheimer’s drug. The decision comes as Medicare considers whether it will also cover the drug. Experts caution that new drugs shaking up the weight-loss market could prove costly for Medicare.
  • Washington is eyeing changes to federal rules that would affect the practice of medicine. One change would force health plans to speed up “prior authorization” decisions by health insurers and increase transparency around denials, which supporters say would help patients better access needed care. Another proposal would ban noncompete clauses in contracts, including in health care. Arguments for and against the change both cite the issue of physician burnout — though they disagree on whether the ban would make the problem better or worse.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: “Tradeoffs” podcast’s “The Conservative Clash Over Abortion Bans,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Dan Gorenstein

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “Sharpton Dodges the Spotlight on Latest Push to Ban Menthol Cigarettes,” by Julia Marsh

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Allure’s “With New Legislation, You Can Expect More Recalls to Hit the Beauty Industry,” by Elizabeth Siegel and Deanna Pai

Jessie Hellmann: The New York Times’ “Opioid Settlement Hinders Patients’ Access to a Wide Array of Drugs,” by Christina Jewett and Ellen Gabler

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Related Topics


Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

Adolescentes en Texas podían obtener control de la natalidad en clínicas federales, hasta que un padre cristiano lo objetó

AMARILLO, Texas – En el vasto Panhandle de Texas, azotado por un viento y sol implacables, las mujeres deben conducir durante horas para llegar a Haven Health, una clínica en Amarillo.

Haven es una de las más de 3,200 clínicas federales de planificación familiar en todo el país, que atiende a los hablantes de inglés y español, proporcionando anticoncepción, pruebas de embarazo e infecciones de transmisión sexual, y detección de cáncer de cuello uterino. Todo a bajo costo o sin cargo para pacientes que están ansiosos, son pobres, o ambas cosas.

Esos pacientes incluyen adolescentes menores de 18 años, que buscan píldoras anticonceptivas o anticoncepción de acción prolongada.

Pero bajo una sorprendente decisión judicial emitida en diciembre, un juez federal dictaminó que estas clínicas violan la ley estatal de Texas y los derechos constitucionales federales, cortando de raíz una fuente vital de atención médica para mujeres jóvenes en el estado.

Defensores de la salud de las mujeres y proveedores de atención médica han denunciado la decisión del juez conservador designado por el presidente Donald Trump, que está en el centro de otros casos de derechos reproductivos. Dicen que es demasiado amplia y sin precedentes. (El fallo se aplica a las regulaciones nacionales, pero por ahora se sigue solo en Texas).

“Ni siquiera podemos proporcionar anticonceptivos para un problema ginecológico”, dijo Carolena Cogdill, directora ejecutiva de Haven Health, quien dijo que el fallo del juez federal de distrito Matthew Kacsmaryk ha tenido un efecto escalofriante en la atención.

“Recibimos a una joven que tenía un sangrado anormal y queríamos recetarle anticonceptivos para ayudar a controlar ese sangrado. Y no pudimos hacerlo porque tenía 16 años”. La paciente había dicho que su madre no entendería, creyendo que su hija “iba a salir y tener relaciones sexuales”, dijo Cogdill.

La ley de Texas ha exigido durante mucho tiempo que las adolescentes tengan el permiso de los padres para obtener anticonceptivos recetados. Pero bajo el programa federal Título X, ciertas clínicas podrían proporcionar anticonceptivos sin el consentimiento de los padres. Establecido en 1970, Título X evolucionó a partir de la era de la “Guerra contra la Pobreza” y fue aprobado con un amplio apoyo bipartidista.

La legislación fue firmada por el entonces presidente republicano Richard Nixon, para brindar servicios de planificación familiar a personas de bajos ingresos, incluidos menores, con el objetivo de reducir el embarazo adolescente.

Pero en julio de 2022, semanas después de que la Corte Suprema revocara la protección constitucional para el aborto en Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Alexander R. Deanda, padre de tres hijas adolescentes que vive en Amarillo, demandó al Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos. Argumentó que el gobierno había violado su derecho constitucional a liderar la crianza de sus hijas.

En su demanda, Deanda, quien es cristiano, dijo que estaba “criando a cada una de sus hijas de acuerdo con la enseñanza cristiana sobre cuestiones de sexualidad” y que no podía tener “la seguridad de que sus hijas no podrán acceder a anticonceptivos recetados” que “facilitan la promiscuidad sexual y el sexo pre-matrimonial”.

En su opinión, Kacsmaryk estuvo de acuerdo y escribió que “el uso de anticonceptivos (al igual que el aborto) viola los principios tradicionales de muchas religiones, incluidas las prácticas de los demandantes de fe cristiana”.

Además, Kacsmaryk, quien también es cristiano, dijo que la existencia de clínicas federales que operan en Texas, donde la ley estatal requiere el permiso de los padres para que las adolescentes reciban anticonceptivos, representaba un “daño inmediato”.

“Las clínicas del Título X están abiertas la mayoría de los días y, por lo tanto, presentan un riesgo continuo, continuo e inminente”, escribió el juez.

La decisión, que hace referencia al catecismo católico y a textos religiosos del siglo IV, sorprendió a expertos legales como Elizabeth Sepper, profesora de derecho en la Universidad de Texas en Austin, quien dijo que esta narrativa era parte de la creciente influencia de la teología cristiana conservadora en los tribunales.

“Estamos viendo cada vez más argumentos religiosos que llegan a los tribunales disfrazados de argumentos legales”, dijo Sepper. “Creo que estamos viendo un movimiento que comenzó con una exención religiosa, diciendo ‘Permítanme estructurar mi atención médica para que se adapte a mi moral’, y ahora se está avanzando hacia una agenda que dice, ‘Permítanme estructurar toda la atención médica de acuerdo con mi moral’”.

Ni Deanda ni su abogado, Jonathan Mitchell, el artífice de la prohibición del aborto en Texas antes de Dobbs, respondieron a las solicitudes de comentarios.

Los efectos del embarazo adolescente en la vida de una mujer pueden ser profundos. La mitad de las madres adolescentes reciben un diploma de escuela secundaria a los 22 años, en comparación con el 90% de las mujeres jóvenes que no dan a luz en la adolescencia. Los nacimientos de adolescentes pueden conducir a malos resultados para la próxima generación: los hijos de madres adolescentes tienen más probabilidades de abandonar la escuela secundaria y terminar en la cárcel o prisión durante la adolescencia.

El doctor Stephen Griffin, profesor asistente en la Universidad Tecnológica de Texas en Lubbock, y obstetra y ginecólogo, describió el acceso a los métodos anticonceptivos para las mujeres jóvenes como un “problema de seguridad”, y agregó que muchos padres subestiman la actividad sexual de sus adolescentes.

“Sabemos que las personas que se identifican como asistentes regulares a la iglesia tienen más probabilidades de subestimar el comportamiento arriesgado de sus hijos en términos de sexo”, dijo Griffin. “Y que los padres que sienten que tienen líneas abiertas de comunicación con sus hijos” también subestiman el riesgo.

Texas tiene una de las tasas más altas de embarazo adolescente en la nación y la tasa más alta de embarazo adolescente recurrente: más de 1 de cada 6 adolescentes que dieron a luz en Texas en 2020 ya tenían un hijo.

Expertos en salud dicen que es probable que la decisión judicial que prohíbe el acceso a la anticoncepción aumente esos números, siguiendo los pasos de otras restricciones a la atención de la salud reproductiva en el estado.

“El aborto es ilegal en Texas. Los niños no reciben educación sexual integral en las escuelas. Un gran [número] de personas en Texas viven sin seguro médico”, dijo Stephanie LeBleu, directora interina de Every Body Texas, que administra las más de 150 clínicas del Título X del estado. “Así que hace que sea muy difícil obtener servicios de salud sexual”.

La administración Biden apeló la decisión de Texas en febrero. Mientras tanto, LeBleu dijo que aquí no queda ninguna red de seguridad para los adolescentes.

“Les roba su humanidad”, dijo. “Les roba potencialmente su futuro. Y les roba su autonomía corporal, y creo que los jóvenes son más que capaces de tomar decisiones sobre su propia atención médica”.

Décadas de investigación muestran que es más probable que los adolescentes busquen atención de salud sexual si pueden hacerlo de manera confidencial. Pero para los tejanos como Christi Covington, la creencia es que la ley no debería hacer excepciones, ni siquiera en los casos más difíciles.

Covington vive en Round Rock, un suburbio de Austin. Se crió en una gran familia evangélica y está transmitiendo esas enseñanzas a sus tres hijos. Dejando de lado las objeciones religiosas al control de la natalidad, dijo que se debe respetar la unidad familiar.

“Dios diseñó el mundo para que haya padres y luego tenemos nuestra descendencia y que los padres cuiden a esos niños, y eso está diseñado”, dijo. “Y lo vemos reflejado en la naturaleza”.

En cuanto al control de la natalidad, dijo, “se siente como una curita”.

“Démosles control de la natalidad, y entonces no tendremos que lidiar con lo que está sucediendo en nuestra sociedad, donde estas adolescentes quedan embarazadas tan rápido y tan fácilmente”, dijo Covington.

Agregó que ya está obligada a dar permiso para el cuidado de la salud de sus hijos, incluidas las vacunas. “Honestamente, tengo que dar mi consentimiento en todas partes para la otra atención médica de mis hijos”, dijo. “¿Por qué decidiríamos que esta área está exenta?”.

Pero Rebecca Gudeman, directora sénior de salud del National Center for Youth Law, dijo que el 60% de los adolescentes involucran a sus padres en estas decisiones.

“Lo hacen no porque la ley les exija hacerlo, sino porque es lo que quieren hacer”, dijo Gudeman.

Algunos jóvenes, dijo, simplemente no pueden involucrar a sus padres o tutores, incluidas parejas como Victoria y Richard Robledo, quienes comenzaron a salir y tener relaciones sexuales cuando ambos eran menores de edad. Victoria dijo que en esos primeros días decidió obtener un control de la natalidad, pero no podía acudir a su madre, una católica devota, en busca de consejo.

“Éramos un hogar hispano típico”, recordó Victoria. “Y, por lo general, en hogares como el mío, no quieren hablar de novios, sexo ni nada de eso”.

Pero Victoria encontró una clínica a menos de una milla de su escuela secundaria y pudo obtener anticonceptivos sin costo. La pareja ahora está casada, vive en Clovis, Nuevo México, al otro lado de la frontera estatal, y tiene dos hijos.

Victoria dijo que poder protegerse del embarazo cuando era adolescente cambió el curso de su vida, permitiéndole ir a la universidad y a su esposo unirse al ejército.

“No nos preocupaba el hecho de que pudiéramos tener un hijo”, dijo. “Ambos pudimos salir y vivir nuestras propias vidas”.

Related Topics


Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

One Texas Judge Will Decide Fate of Abortion Pill Used by Millions of American Women

[embedded content]

AMARILLO, Texas — Federal judges in Texas have delivered time and again for abortion opponents.

They upheld a state law that allows for $10,000 bounties to be placed on anyone who helps a woman get an abortion; ruled that someone opposed to abortion based on religious beliefs can block a federal program from providing birth control to teens; and determined that emergency room doctors must equally weigh the life of a pregnant woman and her embryo or fetus.

Now abortion rights advocates — galvanized by the reversal of Roe v. Wade — are girding for another decision from a Texas courtroom that could force the FDA to remove a widely used abortion pill from pharmacies and physicians’ offices nationwide.

The wide-ranging lawsuit, brought by a conservative Christian legal group, argues that the FDA’s approval process more than two decades ago was flawed when it authorized the use of mifepristone, which stops the development of a pregnancy and is part of a two-drug regimen used in medication abortions.

“The FDA has one job, which is just to protect Americans from dangerous drugs,” said Denise Harle, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, part of a conservative coalition that brought the suit in federal district court in Amarillo, Texas. “And we’re asking the court to remove that chemical drug regimen until and unless the FDA actually goes through the proper testing that it’s required to do.”

A decision in the case was expected as soon as Friday. If successful, the lawsuit would force federal officials to rescind mifepristone’s approval, and manufacturers would be unable to ship the drug anywhere in the United States, including to states like California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New York where abortion remains legal.

Abortion rights supporters and medical groups have pushed back on the lawsuit’s claims. Twelve leading medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, say medication abortion is effective and safe.

Indeed, decades of research show the risk of major complications from taking abortion pills is less than 0.4% — safer than such commonly used drugs as Tylenol or Viagra.

“We’ve got 23 years of data domestically that shows how safe medication abortion is, and it’s been used internationally for decades,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, chief executive of Whole Woman’s Health, a medical organization with clinics in several states. “It’s much safer than somebody being forced to carry a pregnancy against their will.”

About 5 million women in the United States, federal data shows — and millions more across the world — have safely used abortion pills. They can be taken up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy and are also used by OB-GYNs to manage early miscarriages. All told, more than half of all abortions in the U.S. are a result of medication rather than a medical procedure, according Guttmacher Institute research.

Medication abortion involves taking two pills: mifepristone, which blocks the pregnancy hormone, progesterone; and misoprostol, which induces a miscarriage. Both drugs have long and safe track records: Misoprostol was approved in 1988 to treat gastric ulcers, with mifepristone earning approval in 2000 to end early pregnancy.

By filing its lawsuit in Amarillo, the Alliance Defending Freedom was almost guaranteed to draw U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a President Donald Trump appointee who worked as deputy general counsel at First Liberty Institute, a conservative nonprofit advocating for religious liberty, before being confirmed to the federal judiciary in 2019.

Civil rights groups universally opposed Kacsmaryk’s nomination to the Northern District of Texas. U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, said during the confirmation process that Kacsmaryk showed “alarming bias against LGBTQ Americans and disregard for Supreme Court precedents.”

“He’s made statements in opposition to reproductive rights, linking up reproduction to the feminist movement and making anti-feminist statements,” said Elizabeth Sepper, a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin, adding that the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe, allowed the suit against the FDA to proceed. “Prior to Dobbs, the right to abortion would have stood in the way of this lawsuit. But now the conservative legal movement feels empowered.”

The lawsuit is the latest effort by opponents of abortion rights to stymie the use of abortion pills, which many people seeking abortion prefer because it allows them to control their own health care and affords privacy for a process that involves cramping and bleeding, similar to a miscarriage.

“When you have medication abortion, part of the process happens at home. And a lot of people like that,” said Hagstrom Miller, of Whole Woman’s Health. “People can be at home with their loved ones and can sort of schedule the passing of the pregnancy around their work schedule or their child care schedule.”

Harle, however, said that the FDA used a provision to approve the drug that should be used only for medications that treat illness, and that pregnancy is not an illness, but a condition.

“They didn’t meet the standards of federal law,” she said.

Mifepristone’s approval was investigated in 2008 — during the Republican administration of George W. Bush — by the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog, which found that the process was consistent with FDA regulations.

“It’s hard to think of a drug that’s been under more scrutiny than mifepristone,” said I. Glenn Cohen, a Harvard Law School professor and one of 19 FDA scholars who filed an amicus brief opposing the lawsuit. “We don’t think there’s a problem here statutorily or medically. It’d be very dangerous to allow a single judge sitting in Amarillo to essentially order a drug that’s used by many women in America off the market.”

But Harle said that no amount of scientific data would be enough to convince her that mifepristone should be on the market.

“I think chemical abortion does great harms to women and their unborn children,” she said. “And that’s what this lawsuit is really about.”

Abortion care providers like Hagstrom Miller are bracing for the ruling. “I think people know that what happens in Texas doesn’t stay in Texas,” she said. “Some of the most progressive states in the country will face restrictions if this lawsuit is successful.”

If that’s the case, her clinics and OB-GYNs across the country will be forced to use only misoprostol for miscarriage and early abortion care, something that will reduce the efficacy of the method: While taking the two pills together is 99.6% effective in terminating early pregnancy, misoprostol alone — although still extremely safe — is about 80% effective.

Hagstrom Miller also notes that side effects from misoprostol can be more intense, including nausea, diarrhea, and severe cramping and bleeding.

“And that matters, right?” she said. “People should have access to the highest level of medical care.”

Related Topics


Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

A Health-Heavy State of the Union

The Host

Health care was a recurring theme throughout President Joe Biden’s 2023 State of the Union address on Capitol Hill this week. He took a victory lap on recent accomplishments like capping prescription drug costs for seniors on Medicare. He urged Congress to do more, including making permanent the boosted insurance premium subsidies added to the Affordable Care Act during the pandemic. And he sparred with Republicans in the audience — who jeered and called him a liar — over GOP proposals that would cut Medicare and Social Security.

Meanwhile, abortion rights advocates and opponents are anxiously awaiting a federal court decision out of Texas that could result in a nationwide ban on mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortion.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address emphasized recent victories against high health care costs, like Medicare coverage caps on insulin and out-of-pocket caps on prescription drug spending. Biden’s lively, informal exchange with lawmakers over potential cuts to Medicare and Social Security seemed to steal the show, though the political fight over cutting costs in those entitlement programs is rooted in a key question: What constitutes a “cut”?
  • Biden’s calls for bipartisanship to extend health programs like pandemic-era subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans are expected to clash with conservative demands to slash federal government spending. And last year’s Senate fights demonstrate that sometimes the opposition comes from within the Democratic Party.
  • While some abortion advocates praised Biden for vowing to veto a federal abortion ban, others felt he did not talk enough about the looming challenges to abortion access in the courts. A decision is expected soon in a Texas court case challenging the future use of mifepristone. The Trump-appointed judge’s decision could ban the drug nationwide, meaning it would be barred even in states where abortion continues to be legal.
  • The FDA is at the center of the abortion pill case, which challenges its approval of the drug decades ago and could set a precedent for legal challenges to the approval of other drugs. In other FDA news, the agency recently changed policy to allow gay men to donate blood; announced new food safety leadership in response to the baby formula crisis; and kicked back to Congress a question of how to regulate CBD, or cannabidiol, products.
  • In drug pricing, the top-selling pharmaceutical, Humira, will soon reach the end of its patent, which will offer a telling look at how competition influences the price of biosimilars — and the problems that remain for lawmakers to resolve.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Kate Baicker of the University of Chicago about a new paper providing a possible middle ground in the effort to establish universal health insurance coverage in the U.S.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “Don’t Let Republican ‘Judge Shoppers’ Thwart the Will of Voters,” by Stephen I. Vladeck

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “Mpox Is Simmering South of the Border, Threatening a Resurgence,” by Carmen Paun

Sarah Karlin-Smith: KHN’s “Decisions by CVS and Optum Panicked Thousands of Their Sickest Patients,” by Arthur Allen

Rachel Cohrs: ProPublica’s “UnitedHealthcare Tried to Deny Coverage to a Chronically Ill Patient. He Fought Back, Exposing the Insurer’s Inner Workings,” by David Armstrong, Patrick Rucker, and Maya Miller

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Related Topics


Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

Part II: The State of the Abortion Debate 50 Years After ‘Roe’

The Host

The abortion debate has changed dramatically in the seven months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and its nationwide right to abortion. Nearly half the states have banned or restricted the procedure, even though the public, at the ballot box, continues to show support for abortion rights.

In this special, two-part podcast, taped the week of the 50th anniversary of the decision in Roe v. Wade, an expert panel delves into the fight, the sometimes-unintended side effects, and what each side plans for 2023.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Sarah Varney of KHN.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Exemptions to state abortion bans came into question shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe, with national debate surrounding the case of a 10-year-old in Ohio who was forced to travel out of state to have an abortion — although, as a rape victim, she should have been able to obtain an abortion in her home state.
  • The restrictions in many states have caused problems for women experiencing miscarriages, as medical providers fear repercussions of providing care — whether affecting their medical licenses or malpractice insurance coverage, or even drawing criminal charges. So far, there have been no reports of doctors being charged.
  • A Christian father in Texas won a lawsuit against the federal government that bars the state’s Title X family-planning clinics from dispensing birth control to minors without parental consent. That change poses a particular problem for rural areas, where there may not be another place to obtain contraception, and other states could follow suit. The Title X program has long required clinics to serve minors without informing their parents.
  • Top abortion opponents are leaning on misinformation to advance their causes, including to inaccurately claim that birth control is dangerous.
  • Medication abortion is the next target for abortion opponents. In recent months, the FDA has substantially loosened restrictions on the “abortion pill,” though only in the states where abortion remains available. Some opponents are getting creative by citing environmental laws to argue, without evidence, that the abortion pill could contaminate the water supply.
  • Restrictions are also creating problems for the maternal care workforce, with implications possibly rippling for decades to come. Some of the states with the worst maternal health outcomes also have abortion bans, leading providers to rethink how, and where, they train and practice.
  • Looking ahead, a tug of war is occurring on state and local levels among abortion opponents about what to do next. Some lawmakers who voted for state bans are expressing interest in at least a partial rollback, while other opponents are pushing back to demand no changes to the bans. With Congress divided, decisions about federal government spending could draw the most attention for those looking for national policy changes.

And for extra credit, the panelists recommend their most memorable reproductive health stories from the last year:

Julie Rovner: NPR’s “Because of Texas’ Abortion Law, Her Wanted Pregnancy Became a Medical Nightmare,” by Carrie Feibel

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times Magazine’s “She Wasn’t Ready for Children. A Judge Wouldn’t Let Her Have an Abortion,” by Lizzie Presser

Sandhya Raman: ProPublica’s “’We Need to Defend This Law’: Inside an Anti-Abortion Meeting with Tennessee’s GOP Lawmakers,” by Kavitha Surana

Sarah Varney: Science Friday’s and KHN’s “Why Contraceptive Failure Rates Matter in a Post-Roe America,” by Sarah Varney

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Related Topics


Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

Part I: The State of the Abortion Debate 50 Years After ‘Roe’

The Host

The abortion debate has changed dramatically in the seven months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and its nationwide right to abortion. Nearly half the states have banned or restricted the procedure, even though the public, at the ballot box, continues to show support for abortion rights.

In this special two-part podcast, taped the week of the 50th anniversary of the Roe decision, an expert panel delves into the fight, the sometimes-unintended side effects, and what each side plans for 2023.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Sarah Varney of KHN.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Exemptions to state abortion bans came into question shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe, with national debate surrounding the case of a 10-year-old in Ohio who was forced to travel out of state to have an abortion — although, as a rape victim, she should have been able to obtain an abortion in her home state.
  • The restrictions in many states have caused problems for women experiencing miscarriages, as medical providers fear repercussions of providing care — whether affecting their medical licenses or malpractice insurance coverage, or even drawing criminal charges. So far, there have been no reports of doctors being charged.
  • A Christian father in Texas won a lawsuit against the federal government that bars the state’s Title X family-planning clinics from dispensing birth control to minors without parental consent. That change poses a particular problem for rural areas, where there may not be another place to obtain contraception, and other states could follow suit. The Title X program has long required clinics to serve minors without informing their parents.
  • Top abortion opponents are leaning on misinformation to advance their causes, including to inaccurately claim that birth control is dangerous.
  • Medication abortion is the next target for abortion opponents. In recent months, the FDA has substantially loosened restrictions on the “abortion pill,” though only in the states where abortion remains available. Some opponents are getting creative by citing environmental laws to argue, without evidence, that the abortion pill could contaminate the water supply.
  • Restrictions are also creating problems for the maternal care workforce, with implications possibly rippling for decades to come. Some of the states with the worst maternal health outcomes also have abortion bans, leading providers to rethink how, and where, they train and practice.
  • Looking ahead, a tug of war is occurring on state and local levels among abortion opponents about what to do next. Some lawmakers who voted for state bans are expressing interest in at least a partial rollback, while other opponents are pushing back to demand no changes to the bans. With Congress divided, decisions about federal government spending could draw the most attention for those looking for national policy changes.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Elizabeth Nash, who tracks state reproductive health policies for the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research group.

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Related Topics


Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

Watch: Fifty Years after ‘Roe,’ Abortion Rights Battle Shifts to the States

[embedded content]

Sunday marked the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, granting federal constitutional protection for the right to seek an abortion. Last year, a very different Supreme Court overturned Roe, erasing that federal right for women across the United States and, instead, giving individual states broad authority to regulate and restrict abortion within their borders.

In this report co-produced by PBS NewsHour, KHN senior correspondent Sarah Varney joins “PBS News Weekend” anchor John Yang to discuss how abortion opponents and supporters are taking their campaigns to the states, the impact of abortion bans on medical care for women, and the emerging conflicts over medication abortion pills.

We asked people across the country what the abrupt shift in abortion access has meant to them, and we lay out the stakes in the political battles ahead.

Related Topics


Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip